>> is universal service -- i mean, the volunteer army today, people want to be there as chris mentioned. is the idea of universal service going o bring a lot of people into the service who don't want to be there? is that a fair enough summary? >> well, i'll take a crack at it. the answer is possibly, policy. i think we make it broad enough. the universal service is not just americorp vista. as far as i am concerned, serve your local church, school board, senate, mosque, girl's club, boy's club, whatever. now, some of the people may not be able to compensate you, but hopefully that, as mark said, could be worked out to get scholarships, universities and colleges recognize the significance of your service and waive tuition or find ways

towards you. i think it's important that this generation of americans, which clearly understands the importance of service is recognized for that. we appreciate it. one option is in public office, a public policy institute, one be a mentor to someone who benefits from your expertise and guidance. there's a lot of ways to serve, but we have to find a way to recognize the service, give people a piece of paper or certificate saying, thank you for serving america. >> antonia, you want to weigh? >> in this country, there's two r's. there's your right and your responsibility to the communal, and we all should have a stake in the game whether it's in the school, a food bank, but we have to have a commitment, and i think one of the things that, you know, that today is we're

not all able to do only what we want to do, but we want to maintain the democracy. if we want to have a communal sense of, you know, being responsible for the well being of the communal and the communal is the united states of america. .. [applause] >> this has been a big day for everybody. we couldn't have done it,

obviously, without all of you. i want to thank john foreign yea for leading this panel and all the work the whole bpc team has done to put this day together. to our commissioners, i want to thank you all for joining us in this endeavor. a small apology to make, we told you this wasn't going to take too much of your time, and i fear that that might have been a slight understatement. [laughter] because you have raised such, i think, a profound number of questions, we now have an obligation to go out and try to answer some of those questions. so you are launched. the next large meeting of this gathering of the full commission will be on july 23rd in philadelphia. for those of you following us out there in the real world, if you want to learn about what's happening between now and then, please hop on to bipartisanpolicy.org where we'll be updating the activities of this commission and posing papers and questions and, hopefully, continuing what will be a dynamic dialogue. finally, i want to thank our

media partner, "usa today," the exceptionally talented susan page for leading off the e event. and really mostly in this room, it's really nice to think about and thank the president and the legacy of president ronald reagan. is so much of his -- so much of his spirit of pragmatism and passion and conviction, i think, has inspired a lot of the work that we intend to do. and it's really terrific to be in this fabulous library to start this process. so thank you to the reagan library. take care. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you are trying to generate as a government and you're looking for ways to generate new revenue, silicon valley has the answers. if you're trying to explore and ignite better innovation within your companies, silicon valley has the answers. and then from an entrepreneur's standpoint, how is

entrepreneurship different in silicon valley than other places, which it distinctly is. because so much of it is often based on failure and learning from experiences, um, but it's also recognizing that you can be part of the process of adopting other people's ideas, or you may have the idea for the next big thing. but the bottom line is, there's an authenticity to the way things are done in silicon valley that's very accepted no matter who you are. >> what makes silicon valley tick, tonight on "the communicators" at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> she marries at the age of 16 and helps teach her husband to be a better reader and writer. during the civil war, she sneaks supplies to the unionists in the tennessee mountains. but by the time her husband assumes the presidency, she's in poor health and secludes herself to a second floor room in the white house. meet eliza johnson, wife of the 17th president, andrew johnson, as we continue our series on first ladies with your questions

and comments by phone, facebook and twitter tonight live at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> we're going live now at the holocaust museum for its 20th anniversary today with a series of panels focusing on the holocaust as well as genocide prevention. one of the panelists will be president obama's deputy national security adviser, tony blanket. the holocaust museum pays tribute to the more than six million jews and others killed by the nazis during world worldr ii. this is getting started a little late, organizers say about ten minutes late, and also want to tell you that happening right now over on c-span remarks from u.s. senate chaplain dr. barry black. he's speaking at the heritage foundation. again, that's happening live on c-span. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> more than 30 million people have visited the holocaust museum since it opened in 1993, and here are some of the, here is some of what we'll hear this afternoon, a few of the panels. how the events o. second world war affected european identity. what would you do if faced we vents similar to the holocaust. also another panel on how to prevent genocide and the fourth panel we'll hear this afternoon, how social media is used in what the organizers are calling in the hands of haters.

again, we expect this to get started in a few minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the holocaust museum is marking its 20th anniversary today, and already today some 1,000 holocaust survivors and world war ii veterans gathered here for former president bill

clinton. we covered that live, and you can see it at c-span.org. while we wait for this to get under way, we'll hear about homeland security issues after boston marathon bombings. >> and today marks two weeks since the boston marathon bombing. even as the investigation comets, law enforcement officials -- continues, law enforcement officials and lawmakers continue studying the incident for lessons learned. we're joined now by a former white house special assistant for homeland security and director of the george washington university's homeland security policy institute to discuss these issues. mr. salufa, lots of discussion on the sunday shows yesterday over whether the u.s. information system failed leading up to this incident. want to play a clip graham yesterday, senator lindsey graham on "face the nation." >> the fbi investigated the older brother but never shared the information with the fusion

cell in boston so people in the boston area could be on the lookout. when he goes back to russia in january 2012 the system pings at dhs, but dhs doesn't share the information with the fbi or the cia. and when he comes back in 2012, he creates a youtube channel of his own making where he got radical extremist videos that he's watching and interacting with. so it's a failure to share information and missing obvious warning signs. we're going back to the pre-9/11 stovepiping. >> host: mr. salufa, your thoughts talking about stovepiping and failure of information sharing. >> guest: you know, information sharing is always a challenge not just among federal, state and local authorities, but among federal agencies themselves. i think it's early to point too far into what was and was not shared, but clearly we do know that his information was untied which is a big -- on tide, which is a big database, a watch list

of sorts even though that's not the formal name as a o concern. as to whether or not that information was fully tapped, utilized and extrapolated is the real question here. i think the six months traveling overseas in russia, that's where you're going to find a lot of information, a lot of clues, hopefully, that can put together the entire mosaic of the inion. >> host: go back to senator graham's comments about stovepiping, want to talk about this issue. here we are 11 and a half years after september 11th, is there concern about stove pipes coming back in? you're a guyo helped build the homeland security apparatus after those attacks. >> you know, there is the saying that prior to 9/11 we had a pan that of need to know -- mantra of need to know, and then after 9/11 there was the mantra of need to share. the question is, are we sharing the right information? he tiled, the databases themselves are relatively classified, or

they're highly classified actually. so not sure precisely -- we're hearing in the media that the russians had provided information, and i think they're probably in a good position to share additional information. but, yes, i think the information-sharing environment is always going to be a challenge, and it's always going to be imperfect. but i think it has improved dramatically since 9/11. >> host: frank cilluffo was a former white house special assistant for homelandty from 2001 to 2003. talk more about the russian connection here and our ability to cooperate with them in this investigation. >> guest: you know, that's going to be the key. we have a unique opportunity, i think, to be able to work closely with the russians who historically have not been very good friends in a number of national security matters. but i think this is a turning point, and i think this is an opportunity to that still tate the liaison between the two countries. viously, russia has a bett

read on some of the jihadi and extremist organizations in chechnya, the broader caucuses, and i think they, in fact, will have some meaningful information, and i hope that they're willing to actually share that with our liaison intelligence services and specifically the fbi. ironically, i used to work on russian organized crime cases in the '90s, and it was very difficult to get information from the russians. and every once in a while they'll flood the system with information that you had a it wasn't that you had too little, it was that you couldn't make heads or tails out of the information that was actually being shared. but i do think there's a unique opportunity here, and i hope that the russians live up to their parership here. um, and i do think it's time, time will tell. but this is a, it is a unique opportunity. >> host: we're taking your calls and comments in this segment if you want to talk to frank

cilluffo, currently is the director oe homeland secuty policy institute at george washington university. the numbers are on the screen, give us a call. but want to take grow to the held -- you to the headline from national public radio, boston, a real world test of ohmland security. we talked about the intelligence leading up to this incident. talk about the reaction and how would you grade the homeland security response from the incident forward? >> you know, the prevention issues aside whether or not he should have been on the radar screen and we could have prevented the incident, the response, i think, was incredibly powerful. here you had inside boston, you had ems sprung to action immediately, you had the medical response that was very robust. you had no overwhelming of hospitals. the triage was done very effectively. so when you look at the state and local response, i think it was nothing short of terrific. and, obviously, you don't do this overnight. this takes years, this takes

time. you have to ramp up from an ordinary event to an extraordinary event. i also think in the unfolding of the event, boston police depaowld standard. they set the bar for how to communicate with social media, and they were dispelling myths and false information. so i think if you were to look at it from the first responder perspective and also just good american citizens who were samaritans and wanted to help, you can't help but say that was an a+. they, when the time was needed, they sprung right to action, and lives were saved because of some of that training, some of that exercising that we saw come to play, unfortunately, in a crisis. >> host: you talk about the individuals, the people who are on the scene who ant officially first -- aren't oially emergency officials, the

bystanders. >> guest: we all talk about resilience, and we want to build up a resilient community that could absorb unfortunate crises because both from a first response standpoint, but also we don't want to live our lives in fear, obviously. i think what you're seeing is the government has improved its capacities incredibly since 9/11, but we'll never be in a position to protect everything everywhere all the time from every perpetrator and every modality of attack. got to minimize that risk, i but we'll never be at 100% security, and i wouldn't necessarily want to live in a society that is 100% secure, because that would mean real draconian steps that are being taken. what you want to be able to do is focus t real perpetrators, the real bad guys, you want to be able to improve your intelligence capacities that you get there before the bomb goes off. and i think it's worth noting that there have been 65-plus plots since 9/11 that have been prevented and a few, unfortunately, that have been successful such as boston's.

so we're never going to get to that point where we're 100%. what we want to do is minimize the risk and make it, obviously, more difficult for the adversary to commit acts of terrorism. >> host: as we talked about in the last segment, the boston case was the subject of the sunday shows. want to read you a bit more from that washington post story. in boston case, still persons of interest. there's a person of interest in the united states. dutch roethlisberger, a democrat from maryland, told abc news according to that story. on fox news sunday, house homeland security chairman mike mccall said he'd discussed the involvement of trainers with the fbi. quote: i think given the level of sophistication of this device, the fact that the pressure cooker goes back to pakistan, afghanistan leads me to believe that there was a trainer, mccall said, and the question is where is that trainer or trainers.

mr. cilluffo, what do you know on this point on the ongoing investigation and connections overseas? >> guest: you know, we did two reports that was looking at internet-facilitated radicalization, and then he did one in 2010 that was looking at foreign fighters, westerners traveling to jihadi conflict zones, getting some training and potentially committing attacks back iheir homelands. obviously; when you look at someone who has been trained, that is a much more significant threat. there's a lot that can be done on the internet, and it's certainly within the realm of possibility from a trade craft standpoint that this was straight out of mazi. but i do that the trade craft was a little more sophisticated, especially the detonation device which is not out of inspire magazine. so you do want to make sure you get your read and lead on anyone who's a potential bomb maker. and then, of course, the

internet plays a role in facilitating radicalization. so, i mean, when you hear about people of interest, you're looking for two primary actors. one who is radicalizing these individuals, what are they propagating. and, two, did they receive any training to evade law enforcement and, unfortunately, to make more deadly devices? so that's kind of where we are now. i do think if you see someone traveling overseas, for example, the two cases najibullah saz si who was traveling to afghanistan wanted to join up with the taliban. he was intercepted by al-qaeda, said he was of greater value to commit acts back in the united states. also faisal shahzad, the times square bomber. he had traveled to pakistan as well, was intercepted by the pakistani taliban and was told instead of fighting over here, go back to the united states where you're going to be of greater value because you're

familiar with the environment, you have the so-called golden passport, the ability to travel freely in the united states. that's a big concern. right now, for example, you have over 500 europeans fighting in syria. at some point these people go back home. you have americans fighting in syria. you've had americans fighting in yemen. you've had americans fighting in somalia. that is, that is a concern and something we need to take very seriously. because as much as you can learn at home, if you're actually practicing and you have experts training you, that elevates the threat level by many orders of magnitude. >> host: we're taking your thoughts on lessons learned as we talk to frank cilluffo this morning, director of the homeland security policy institute at george washington university. joe is up from atlanta, georgia. good morning, joe, you're on with mr. cilluffo. >> caller: how you doing this os good. goni >>alr: i'dto a le you,

i ke hearing about homeland security buying up guns and ammunition, as much as they can get. i mean, they don't hunt, they don't target shoot. who are they planning on using them on? >> guest: i actually don't have all the facts on the purchase of ammunition, but i do think that's a legitimate question. one thing to realize is dhs is the second largest law enforcement agency, so they, obviously, all law enforcement agencies are looking to ammunition to be able to defend themselves. but i do think there are some legitimate questions there that i, unfortunately, don't have the answer to. >> host: another headline from npr: boston lockdow ex pruden experts say. talk about the decision to institute a lockdown in this manhunt. how is it being viewed in retrospect? >> guest: you know, i actually don't love the term "lockdown." it was a shelter in place that was actually instituted in this case.

and the scale and scope of this was extraordinary. you had an entire city. but the circumstances were extraordinary too. you had an active, ongoing, very dangerous situation. e so-calledockdown or shelter in place protocols have been in place for natural disasters, they've been in place for active shooter types of situations. basically, if it's too dangerous to evacuate, they institute a shelter in place -- >> host: but anything to this level? >> guest: this is unprecedented. but i think the circumstances were as well. i mean, you had two individuals on the loose who had just perpetrated a major terrorist attack. they've had shootouts with law enforcement, and they're throwing ieds from are their cars. this isn't your everyday situation. unfortunately. so i think what you saw in play here was a decision made by local officials. i have been quoted many be times saying it was -- many times saying it was prudent, and i think in this situation it was.

not only do you keep people out of harm's way, you keep people out of law enforcement's way to be able to finish off the investigation and identify and nab the perpetrator. >> host: we're taking your thoughts on lessons learned after the boston bombing. tim is up next from sterling, colorado, on our independent line. good morning, tim. >> caller: good morning. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: yes. i just have a comment about what all the past government stuff that's been allowed to go on in the, whether that has any part of being responsible for the things that's going on in the u.s. with the american people being killed and stuff. >> host: tim, explain a little bit more. what do you mean when you say past things going on? >> caller: well, they've allowed all in the stuff to go on. they allow the people to come into the country and go back out of the country and everything and homeland security being

breached by them going back over and learning things about bombs on the internets and all this stuff. >> guest: you kn tim, i think one of the greatest dimensions missing right now in our counterterrorism state craft is to push back on the ideology. to paraphrase bill clinton, it's not the economy, stupid, but it's the ideology, stupid. and right here i think we've had some major successes overseas going after the leadership of al-qaeda, its affiliates and its franchises. and we need to continue to turn to kinetic responses to the terrorist leadership. but we haven't done enough to go after the ideology, to expose its hypocrisy, to expose its lies, to ultimately unpack it, dissect it and remember the victims. why is it you always hear about

the perpetrators when we should really be focusing on the victims, their dreams, their opportunities lost. i think there's much more we can do to expose the hypocrisy and, ultimately, defeat and attack the ideology. because that's what's where ding dong the witch may be dead with osama bin laden or anwr awlaki or some of these other significant actors which is not trivial, it's a big effect. but their narrative lives on, and we need to expose, unpack that and, quite honestly, attack it. >> host: question from rock docs on twitter, do you consider the weapons and explosives used in boston to be weapons of pass destruction? >> guest: no. the terminology weapon of mass destruction is not only chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear. the legal -- >> it is my privilege to welcome you to this event. the museum works extensively throughout the world insuring the permanence of holocaust

memory. of i know a lot about this, because in 2006 my wife and i, judy, visited poland and germany and one of the museum's international trips. seeing auschwitz was unforgettable, but i was most surprised and pleased to see how much is going on in europe to advance holocaust memory and understanding especially in partnership with the museum. perhaps the highlight of the trip was the visit to dresden, and we were joined by high-ranking officials from berlin to open a museum with deadly medicine, one of our exhibits, if an institution that was once used by nazis to promote their racial agenda. all those decades after the holocaust, it was an extraordinary experience. today we are honored to have with us senior officials from germany, poland and france. now it is my pleasure to

introduce my good friend and the museum's director, laumenfe.rah? e] >> [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> no. this one is working now. okay. we apologize for the late start. we have had, the rain has caused unexpected problems with our sound system. there's a great expression in yiddish, man plans -- man plans and god has his own ways of doing things. so today i think god is in

charge. but we're delighted to have with us three of the museum's closest international partners, germany, poland and france. and i'm just going to quickly introduce them so we can hear from them. they've traveled all the way to the united states to be with us for this occasion. on my immediate left, the german defense minister, dr. thomas demassier. [applause] next to him from poland we welcome back our good friend, our old friend the minister of culture and national heritage, bogdan stroyev, vsky and finally the ambassador of france for holocaust and human rights issues. [applause] so in the interest of time, i'm just going to ask one question

and to can ask all of you to respond. but our audience is very interested in europe today and how you deal with issues of holocaust educationand ti-semism. sok oou to comment on that, a then maybe i'll follow up with some specific questions. so, minister demassier, could i ask you to talk first about this. >> well, thank you, ms. blumenfeld and dear friends and colleagues. first of all, i would like congratulate you for the museum, for this event, for 34 million visitors who hopefully left this museum with hope and desire as we heard. and we are privileged and thankful that we could help by cooperating with you and your whole staff. first of all, holocaust

education, i think, is a duty for the country, for the state -- at least germany -- and the society as well. for the country we did quite a lot. official memorial days, education in school, movies, official visits and things like that. especially the chancellor merkel, as you know, in front of the knesset in 2008 she pointed out that israel and the existing of israel is part of the what we call raison d'etre of our country. i think this is the strongest, the strongest word to say. and the she added that the security of israel is never to be negotiated, and we will be

always on the side of israel. his the state side. but on the civil side, i think it's more important to get the young people like yours some minutes ago to be involved in what happened and what should be avoided in the future. and there's a lot of, there are a lot of initiatives. for example, we have this, i know it's discussed in germany, but we have this what we call -- [speaking german] stumbling stone. they are built up in front of those houses where jews were kept and had to go tear suffering way -- their suffering way. such a discussion of this,

again, it's a sign where you can say, well, this is where a jewish family lived. but the whole majority is welcoming it. and so you see day by day when you walk through the cities, these sort of stumbling stones, they're out of bronze with the names. we build synagogues, new synagogues in germany again. we had the migration of jewish families from russia and other parts of the former soviet union. i cannot be silent, there are difficulties trying to integrate them. there are discussions between the old european-oriented jewish people in germany and the new ones who sometimes are not religious-oriented. but there's still a huge discussion.

so in thend i think there is new life for jewish life in germany, and it's not only, we are not only commemorating the jewish victims, we just opened a memorial for the homosexuals and for -- [inaudible] who were, who suffered under the nazi regime. so there's a lot underway, but there is still a lot to do. last word, we are germans, and we are quite good in doing things rational. we talk about enlightenment, research, what are the reasons for hitler and things like that, and this is, this is very rational. as we are sometimes. but we can learn from you that if you want to deal with history, you not only should work with your head, but you should touch your heart.

and what i saw a minute ago, there we can learn a lot of that not only by rational approaches, but in the proper way to reach the hearts of the young generation is very important to fulfill your promise, your museum promise never again. thank you. pleasure. [applause] >> one, two, three. >> translator: europe remembers because it should remember. europe must remember. it is in europe's interest to remember. and poland, on the map of europe, has particular tasks to do.

it's within polish borders that the largest nazi camps are located. authentic momentos of the most dramatic events in world history. i look at today's commemoration, and i look at the witnesses of those dramatic events, and i am aware that there are fewer and fewer of them. therefore, the next generation must take it over, the remembrance. to me, two things are particularly important.

today's wois divided not only by political borders, but also by the quality of memory. some people remember very, in great detail. other people don't remember. i am the most troubled by those people who should remember, but they try not to. totoday in europe there is consensus. we are in con seven is us that those -- consensus that those events of those years may never repeat. there is consensus that those who are guilty of those crimes should always be, should always be looked for, apprehended.

but we also are in consensus that there is no ftu europe and the world with a partial history. in recent times we did a lot. we accomplished a lot in terms of preserving the artifacts that are a testimony of those events. also european union funds or resources are applied at the auschwitz camp to preserve the artifacts. we created an endowment to

accelerate the preservation rk. but we also look at europe with some concern. any tolerance towards neo-nazi movements should be eradicated. peace is not given to us once forever. a human being is not perfect. and societies aren't perfectal the more. perfect all the more. i don't believe in a world without prosecutors, jails and judges. but i believe that thanks to institutions such as the united

states memorial, holocaust memorial museum here in washington and thanks to accurate memory, thanks to remembrance that's accurate not only the holocaust won't happen again, but also an aggression of one nation upon another will not be possible. nation-states e at, are guarding those values. various institutions such as the holocaust museum. but also you. important witnesses of the most dramatic events in world history.

i am convinced that in europe the current of thought which defends the most basic values is winning. but i must add not without effort and that effort must continue. [applause] >>irst, would like to say how honored and moved i am to represent france here today and how we appreciate the work of this institution you represent, sarah. and there is a dimension on which i would like, i would like to underscore which is very important to me. the fact that you succeeded in 20 years in preserving,

maintaining, transmitting the memory of -- [inaudible] pointing out what was unique this in this general side, the very specific dimension which make this mass crime unprecedented, and on the other hand, opening to other genocides, other issues of our times. and both issues are linked because difficulty when for all those who want to transmit this memory, this history is not to be trumped in the competition of memories, competition of sufferings. and never again for jews, never again for others as well. and this is the very message of

the holocaust memorial. in france we are facing our past. it's never easy to face one's past. it's not easy for an individual, it's not more easy for a people. but we did it. at the political level, very important statements, historical statements have been education press -- expressed by president chirac and renewed by president hol and. but moreover that all civilian society, all the bodies, and the polish minister used a term which i think is very appropriate to our situation. it's consensus. memory is not a theme that could be discussed in my country. i mean, there is a national consensus.

we had a debate recently, a few years ago, about what was the french identity. this remains for many of us in a larger sense a question mark. but no doubt that the memory of the darkest and the saddest pages of our history are a part of our dna and our identity. and we consider as a duty our responsibility, and i don't know a higher one to transmit. that's why we have organized a huge and ambitious program for educating all children, all pupils of all classes of every college, every school of france about the holocaust. of -- moreover, we educate the professors, the teachers, all the peacekeepers and the policemen and magistrates.

we adopted laws that prevent -- repress in extreme severity any attempt to this need for denial. and maybe we'll talk to that later. we also fight against denial on the international arena. >> um, ambassador, while -- [applause] while you have the microphone, i wanted to ask you a follow-up question about france today and the jewish community. you have the largest jewish community in europe, and as we all know, there have been recent violent acts of anti-semitism against the jewish community. what -- could you talk a little bit about what the government is doing and how you would assure the jewish community of france that it can have a safe and secure future in france? >> first, i think it's important to keep in mind that the jewish

community in france is one of the largest jewish communities of the world. it is extremely rooted in our country in its culture and its past. very well established. and this is to say that there is no word to say how we have been shocked. i want to say we. it's not only the jewish community, but all the french community backing around the jewish community when the horrible fights happened in tiew lose. there is antisemitism in france and there are some crimes which have been committed and shocked the public opinion in all the world, but in particular in france. what i can say is that there is no compromise in terms of

police, justice, education. i don't know which kind of answer a state could give to such facts. we are extremely active on everything that could fuel anti-semitism, and if particular the relation -- in the particular the relation which is often established between the -- [inaudible] conflict and anti-semitism. we would like to break this linkage which fuels anti-semitism, and we are educating with very specific programs the teachers as well in order to counterargue to all attempts for that. regarding our police forces and our justice response, i think it has been always extremely prompt and recognized by all as extremely prompt, and there is no kind of indigence.

the only thing i could say because it's extremely sad, and it's -- for us extremely questiong as wl. it's the fact that the whole -- [inaudible] the whole national community was packed around the jewish community on this theme, fighting against anti-semitism. it is real, really a national consensus. >> um, minister demass owe, i want to ask you a question from a totally different angle. and you are the minister of defense. you oversee, obviously, all the military if germany today. in germany today. recent scholarship has shown that once one of the most respected militaries in the world was complicit in aspects of the holocaust particularly in the soviet union.

so you bear in this responsibility tata you have today a particular -- that you have today a particular responsibility for leading the military in not only a democratic germany, but a germany that plays, is such a leader in the european union. >> well, this is a very, very important question for us. and when i saw the veteran here an hour ago and have seen the tradition of the armed forces in america, it's an uninterrupted tradition of fighting for democracy, of values and for not a -- [inaudible] regime. and it's totally different in germany. the military was part of the system, no doubt about it. and nothing is new there.

and when we started in the 50s, it was and it still to a certain extent is the discussion what about the tradition from the military to the -- [inaudible] and i think it's quite clear now that the military a a whole cannot be worthy of serving as a tradition. that's absolutely clear. of course, we can commemorate the victims killed, german soldiers. of course, we can recognize and respect outstanding actions of some generals, officers and others. but this does not mean that the military as a whole is part of the tradition.

we are three traditional lines. one the old prussian reformers, the second one is are -- the resistance. my office is the office where the attack was planned on hitler and where he was killed in the same night. and the postal address is stuffen beck street. so this is a second tradition line. and then the new generation who started the new military with a new approach that the soldier always remains a citizen and for what we call -- b. [speaking german] , so we are well aware of our tradition. we have everything in mind, but we can only cultivate a

tradition which is undiscuss undiscussable, democratic one. and i started, the other year i started a discussion about veterans in germany. we are the only country where we don't have sort of a veterans' tradition. it's because of this. we can't have undiscussed traditional veterans. 'em possible. impossible. but we can start to create a new tradition of veterans of the new military having all the past of germany in their minds. and still it's a difficult discussion in germany, and why not? so -- and to end with -- [inaudible] dresden was mentioned. this is my hometown now. and there's a new building there, the historical museum. the architect was --

[inaudible] and it's a remarkable museum. and there we celebrated the consciousness and the awareness of the whole part of our ory, and then to look into the future and see what military means to all of us. and so i think this is a -- and all the visitors coming from abroad are impressed. and, hopefully, you will have the opportunity to visit dresden and the new me seem. and i think -- museum. and i think this is what we want to establish, this mature thought of tradition. not neglecting everything, but serving good traditions without the whole tradition of the old military as a whole. [applause] >> thank you. so, um, we're -- because we're running out of time and we need to wrap this up, i want to ask one final question and, please, if i could, it's a big question, but i'm going to be not very

nice and ask you to answer it briefly. but i want to ask you, you sit here not only as individual nations, but also as three of the most important countries in the european union. and in america we also are looking at the european union and how it's governing itself and planning for its future. so one of the questions that comes to mind as we look at, i believe one of you comments that anti-semitism is, you see it in every country in different degrees. obviously, we've seen it recently in places like greece, for example, and very alarmingly in hungary at more the governmental levels. and i wondered if you would each just talk briefly about how you see the e.u.'s historical responsibility in addressing this issue given europe's past and, of course, that the e.u. was created so that europe's future would be different from the past. and if it's okay, i'll start with you, mr. ambassador, and mr. minister, and we'll --

>> e.u. has been built after the war with coal and steel. it succeeded in huge achievements, concrete achievements in terms of the economy, for example. but as one said, the new frontier, the few -- the new objective is to create a real european citizenship. there is in europe, but there are not europeans. not yet. but what will be the citizenship to come made of? what our children will have in common, euro directives? if this is that, it's not a very moral project which should be at

the core of europe. and i do think that europe should share values not only by institutions and regulations, but above all by education. and i do think that it would be an extraordinary step if we once agree on the fact that, for example, this page of history doesn't belong to each separate people, but is a common legacy of all european peoples and should be taught in the same terms to all children of your. if we succeeded in creating a european textbook or only a european paragraph, a european chapter on the textbooks regarding this part of the his

we have in -- history we have in common, i think we will build the basis, the very value of what should be a european citizen. ms. . [applause] >> translator: europe is changing, you can see that. this part of the world that is responsible for remembering about history is also changing. four years ago there was an exhibition in berlin which was about september 1, 1939, which was the outbreak of world war ii. many years ago it would be

impossible. polish-german relations are now at their best in 1,000 years of history. >> that means something, by the way, this really means something. >> translator: in russia, on the other hand, they have showed a movie about cutting. a film about cutting. this is a movie about murder, the mass murder of more than 10,000 polish officers. by the soviets. and not too long ago that film showing would not be possible in russia.

president obama visited poland about a year ago, and he visited the new museum of polish jews which is being built in warsaw. he promised to come back to the museum for it opening with his daughter. and i'm sure he will, he will live up to his promise. it is very important that we are building a museum dedicated to our joint history in warsaw. the building is already up. the exhibit will be ready in about a year. so i invite you all to come for the opening next year.

i think that the harm that gets done by the losses that happen due to wars can never be repaid or restored. this is obvious. i was the mayor of the city of -- [inaudible] for more than 11 years. it used to be a german city. while my parents came from part of the ukraine. for me, respect for the history was very important.

but also very important to me was respect for the sole surviving jewish cemetery in the city. i remember that in the history of the sons and daughters of the city half of the nobel prize winners were jewish. now, the lot of my family in moving to warsaw, that travel changes my role or mission. today i am responsible for the national heritage. but all of the heritage, each heritage. polish, jewish and german as a whole.

we, the poles, always wanted to have america as the neighbor. but it's quite a ways. continents can't travel. we would like that. but we have to work together, and we must work together, i repeat, in truth. and that's our biggest commitment. and while finishing my statement, i just would like to convey, again, my respect for the director and for those who founded this museum. and please remember that you can always count on poland's cooperation with this project. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> well, some years ago an american politician -- i don't want to quote his name -- talked about europe as the old europe. you'll remember. [laughter] and it wasn't meant very friendly. [laughter] i received it as a compliment. we are proud to be old. and what is our history? the first president of west germany pointed out three hills where europe was built on. the acropolis stands for

democracy. i neglect slavery for a moment. the capital in rome stands for justice. and the hills of jerusalem stands for the jewish-christian cooperation and tradition. and these are the three traditions for europe and within europe. and we are proud to have these traditions. of course, nowadays there are millions of islams live in germany and france, other countries. and they are welcome. and our tradition does not mean we exclude something or somebody. but these are all -- this is our heritage. these traditions. and this excludes anti-racism, anti-semitism. and we are, we have discussions about euro, we have discussions about directives and tiny little they

directives and discussions like that. but the consensus that this is the real added value of europe, this old tradition which brings us to a common future, perhaps including a citizenship in a couple of years, i think this is the best guarantee against racism, anti-semitism or what you can think about. and this includes now nearly whole europe, and especially i would like to end with this, poland and germany. and this was not understanding for centuries. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will just close by saying we hope the european union, um, even exceeds these wonderful aspirations that you all have for it. thank you all for your patience, thank you for joining us coming from europe, and there will be another program in this theater shortly. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this event commemorating the

20th anniversary of the opening of the u.s. holocaust museum is taking a short break now. while we wait for the next panel to begin, here's a look at some of the comments from earlier today. [inaudible conversations] >> we believe that in opening up the gates of our memory, we are bringing people closer together. we bring people out to the realization of what a person, a human being, a perp, an individual -- a person, an individual can do. and i think of those who saved lives, all these christians who saved lives while risking their own. weevery one of them is a hero. [applause] i also remember that once we

organized here where i was so involved before this extraordinary group of people led by tom and by sarah, before that they organized a group for the liberators. they brought liberators from all over the world. and i spoke to them. i said you are now the first to have seen us. of you were the first three men and woman wolf seen us -- who have seen us inside. bear witness. you be our witnesses. and i remember i was going from one to the other, members of the resistance in poland and in hungary and everywhere. i said, tell me, what gave you the courage to resist? what gave you the courage to become a hero? and all of them answered me, we heroes? people not see that at all. and one said, look, if my neighbor was in danger, how could i not offer him a place in

my cellar or in my attic in be a child was running in the state, how could i not open the door the save imor her? and i -- him or her? and i said to myself, woe up to us. in those times it was enough to be human, to become a hero. my good friends, we are trying here not to make the visitor a hero, but to make the visitor a messenger. president clinton, 20 years ago here in this place but outside it was of raining. [laughter] we were soaked, both you and i. our shoes were if water. i saw them, yours and mine. president clinton, i remember then that i came to speak.

marion and i had worked on my speech the entire night. literally, the entire night. and then i opened my folder. if ever i was close to a heart attack, it was then. [laughter] it was soaked. [laughter] i couldn't decipher a word. have i tried to remember what i said, it would have been a disaster. so i had to improvise a new one. and that's when i turned to you, mr. president, and i spoke to you about yiewg -- yugoslavia. i had just come back from there. what we must do in the name of our memory, what we must do to help those people from becoming victims of one another.

and i remember you promised america will do. and then you were kind enough to send me as your emissary to yugoslavia. that moment, mr. president, will not be forgotten by either my wife or myself or my friends. and that moment, mr. president, you and i became friends. and as you know, to me friendship is a religion. and that is one of most noble religions without any fanatical danger. the most beautiful one. and to have you here now 20 years later is more than a privilege. it is a gift. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, can everybody have a seat, please? appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> can you hear me? >> hold it really close. >> okay. we're going to get started. good afternoon, everyone. if you could be seated. my name is sarah ogle i have,

and i'm the director of the museum's national institute for holocaust education. in the 20 years that the museum has been open, there has been a great deal of new scholarship about why and how the holocaust happened. though there's much we still don't know, we have learned a great deal about what happened at the local level. and if you haven't had a chance yet, i hope you'll visit our latest special exhibition which just opened this past weekend called some were neighbors, collaboration and complicity during the holocaust. it presents some of the new findings that we've discovered about the range of responses in communities, neighborhoods, workplaces and classrooms across europe. the main point is to say that without the participation of tens of thousands of ordinary people, the holocaust would not have been possible. but it makes another really important point which is to say

that mayors, that police, that civil servants, neighbors, teenagers and so on across europe had opportunity, and they had freedom to be helpful to the victims in the ways that we may not know so much about. and, in fact, the focus of this program is going to be highlighting some of that range of action that's really new information for many people. now, i'd like to introduce the rest of our panel. to my left is dr. phillip zampardo, perhaps most famous for his stanford prison experiment. but more recently he's the founder of the heroic imagination project. and next to the doctor is npr correspondent and author of "the hidden brain." and at the end of the row is dr. william meineke who is a museum historian, and will has been responsible for many of those interesting new findings

about high the holocaust happened. so welcome the panelists. now, we're going to focus on positive actions in this program, but i want to begin with just a few insights about why it was that so many people all across europe became complicit with the nazis' goals. so, will, let's start with you. what have we learned about this? >> it's really interesting, sarah, because, you know, i started working with adult professionals about 15 years ago, and i was surprised to find that there really isn't a simple explanation for a predicter because, frankly, people are complex, and they change their opinion, they change their responses from moment to moment depending on the circumstances and what they understand about the events as they unfold. you know, only a tiny minority were engaged in active rescue or active persecution of jews during the holocaust. and you ask what drove the actions of those that

participated in the nazis, that supported the nazi program, you know, i'd have to say hate, anti-semitism, greed, ambition and fear. fear not just real fear, but also a belief in the fearfulness of their position. and also people are social actors. so it's not just the individual, it's also people as part of groups, a group and peer pressure also are important here. but it's complex. it's not a simple answer. it's just very complex. so, phillip, you've thought about this question your entire career, and you've had research projects. help us understand why it is in some ways so easy for people to become involved in be lax? >> yeah. my background is i grew up in poverty in the south bronx. can you hear me? [inaudible conversations] hello. >> hold it to your mouth like this.

>> okay. i grew up surrounded by evil as a poor kid growing up in the ghetto in the south bronx. and what means is there were people whose job it was to get good kids to do bad jobs for money. if you're rich, you don't do things for money. your parents give you the money. but if you're poor, if you're ap immigrant, if you're a minority person, then there are always people, these negative influence agents. and they use subtle, psychological insights although they've never taken psychology. they're really intuitive psychologists. and as a little kid i was, began to observe what did they do? why did some kids follow them and other kids didn't? and it was always a choice that, you know, i and some of my friends didn't go down the slippery slope of evil, and other kids dud. and when -- did. and when i became a psychologist, i really wanted to understand that more profoundly. how can an ordinary person first

begin to step across the line between good and evil and do bad? it's almost always the case that the first step is a little thing. it's like cheating on your taxes a little bit and then a little bit more and a little bit more. and so there really is a slippery slope of evil. and then the famous experiment by stanley milgram called blind obedience society, he gets ordinary people, a thousand men from new haven, connecticut, bridgeport, connecticut, to believe that they are helping somebody by shocking him whenever he makes a mistake. but the key to the whole experiment was you begin by pressing one button that says 15 volts, and then the second one is only 30 volts, and the third is 5. the problem is, the last button is 450 volts. when you press that, you could be killing him. and the amazing thing is two of every three american men -- and they did it with women, two of

three american women -- went all the way to 450 volts. and for me, the most important thing in that study is all evil begins with 15 volts. so when you step across that line, so, again, in the case of trying to deal with holocaust in nazi germany, once you look the other way, once when a store was shut down, once you didn't tell your neighbor i'm really sorry, that's the 15 volts. so that's the thing we try and teach young people is be aware of the power of the situation. so i'm a social psychologist, and i try to avoid focusing on the individual. what is wrong or good or bad about people. what i'm trying to focus on, what are the situations that trap us? most of these evil -- and now what i'm trying to do is just the opposite. >> i'm going to stop you there because we're going to come back to the other side in a little bit, but i want to go for another part of the complicity story which is the human

tendency towards inaction when faced with the suffering of others. tell us about that side. >> so the holocaust presents us with a puzzle, and it's a puzzle that has repeated itself many times in the other genocides which is that it unfold, and most of the world sits on its hands and does nothing. so the question is, why does this happen? so when we think about tragedies, we have two intuitive beliefs about tragedies. the first is if something bad were to happen to us, it would be helpful to have many people around us who see that bad thing happening. because among those many people, there will be some people who will step forward to help us. so we have an intuitive belief that the number of witnesses increases the likelihood that somebody would step forward to help. we have a second spewtive belief which is -- intuitive belief which is as the number of victims increases, our willingness to help should also go up. so if i know that one person is in harm's way or i know that a hundred people are in harm's way, i should be more willing to

act when the larger number is in harm's way. so in my book i talk about these two ideas and ways in which psychologists have shown that both these intuitions turn out to be not just wrong, but wrong in really powerful ways which is as the number of witnesses goes up and the number of victims goes up, the willingness to actually do something goes down. and in the case of the witnesses, i mean, we've talked about the bystander effect b which many of you have heard about, no doubt, psychologists have been talking about it for decades now, i talk about the story of a woman who was attacked on a bridge in detroit in the, you know, in the full sight of hundreds of other onlookers. and she was eventually pursued on the bridge by this attacker, and she leaped off the bridge in full view of hundreds of other people. the astonishing part is that for the longest time none of these other people called the police. and so when this happens, our intuitive belief is not to say there's something wrong with

these people, these are bad human beings. and i spoke with some of the witnesses here, and what i came away with is what psychologists are finding over again which is this is not just something that happens to bad people. this is something that happens to ordinary people, people like you and me. and on the second front there's been a lot of interesting research showing that the human ability to exercise compassion functions very much like a telescope. it works best when it can focus on a single individual. when we expand that and now say a million people need help or 100,000 people need help, our ability to focus on the individual really disappears, and that's another reason why in the case of genocide you have a large number of witnesses, you have a large number of victims, and in both cases they don't trigger the intuitive responses, they trigger exactly the opposite. >> so we could spend a whole program just exploring this topic, but i do now want to turn to the main subject at hand which is helping behaviors. and i think when most people think about helping during the

holocaust, they immediately think about rescue. and we're going to show a video clip in just a moment of a survivor talking about her rescuer, a woman named susan. and she appears here on the left in this photo. she's with her sister. but let me just take a moment to say thank you to the foundation for letting us use the testimony, all the testimony that you're going to see in this program. there's just some incredibly rich stories, many of which have never been seen before. so back to susan and her sister, they were on the run in belgium in 1942 when they encountered a woman looking for a place to stay about an hour and a half outside of brussels. so we're going to hear susan talk about the encounter that she had with this belgian woman now. >> the one day i went to a woman, and, of course, i was the french-speaking one. and i went to an old lady, and i

said to her maybe you have a room to rent or whatever, you know? at first i said we are refugees. but, of course, again can, there was a proclamation that if somebody was hiding us and they were caught, they would be put to death. so my conscience was bothering me, and i wasn't going to let, you know, people risk their life. so i told the old lady, i said, look, we are jews from the city, and we are hiding. and, you know, if you want to rent us a room, if they catch us, you might get shot. >> you're not jewish. why are you saying you're jewish? i said, what do you mean i'm not jewish? she said, yeah. first of all, you're a blond, and secondly, jews have horns.

you have no horns. >> i was stunned. i said, my god, this is an hour and a half from plus ls? you would think -- i mean, you never saw a jew? she said, no, i've always lived here, and i never saw a jew. why do you say? but i know that moses -- and all the jews have horns. so anyway, she said, no, i'm not afraid of being shot. i'm an old lady. i lived all my life. and if you need rooms, i said, how much do you want? ..

>> what is that work like? >> yeah, as we said before, we really don't understand personality differences really between heros and villains, that it's often you're caught up in a situation that you've never been in before, you look around to see what other people are doing, and, really, the issue is with bystandinger is when you look around, if there's an emergency, and you see people not doing anything, the social norm is do nothing, and so even though there's strangers, it's as if you're in a group, and somebody's saying, hey, don't get involved, do nothing, but as soon as one person gets involved for whatever reason, instabilitily the new norm is get involved, and within seconds, other people join. one of the things we're trying to do in the heroic imagination

project is to teach young people from middle school to college, and we want to now go primary school, how to be a wise and effective everyday hero. most heros are ordinary people that we don't know without because unless you live in a big city, unless you're act is caught on video or youtube, you do your deed quietly, and, in fact, we don't even know all the heros in the holocaust. we know christians who helped jews who are identified, but many, many people did small heroic deeds, and so what i'm trying to do is to teach young people heroism begins -- okay, let me put it this way. we think heros can be trained, people can be trained to first understand the power of the dark side, understand what are the prince. -- principles, these negative

agents use, and see the bright side with everyday lessons how to be an effective hero. what that means, simply, for example, is every day this week, make someone feel special. what do you mean? make eye contact, shake hands, give them a justifiable compliment, something that makes them feel special and smile. why is that heroic? heros are sociocentric. i have to notice -- if i developed a social habit of noting people i give a compliment to to feel special, i'm going to be the one, more likely than him, to notice someone in the corner crying, someone's slumped over in the backseat, and i'll have the habit of saying, "are you okay? do you need help? hey, she needs help." that's -- so this is one of the simple kinds of things we do to say, we don't really care

whether you're a compassion person, we're going to teach you the skills and strategies and techniques of how to be an effective hero. part of that means you have to learn, for example, first aid procedures available through the red cross so in the terrible tragedy in boston, those who helped most are those who had some first aid training because you knew how to stop bleeding and other kinds of things. we think it's possible to get ordinary people to aspire to be heros in a very systematic way, and our evidence is that it really is working, but, clearly, the link here is how do we translate the lessons of the evil of the past into positive lessons about creating a future generation of heros who are really social change agents? we want to start in america. i'm doing work in poland and

move the program to poland and other places. you want more information, we can give you a website. we hope you visit. >> so this story that we heard about the belgium woman, obviously, was exceptional. she risked her life, and there were few people who did so, but there were many other opportunities and examples of being helpful to the victims, and now we're going to look at a few examples of elementary schoolteachers. all in germany. will, tell us how much opportunity or autonomy did teachers have during that time? >> that was, for me, one of the big surprises in doing the research is there was really not a central coordinated education policy in the third reich. you think of the nazis has a horrible dictatorship, and it was, but there were multiple organizations, three big organizations, each claiming control over what a teacher did in the classroom, first, the state administration, the rights min industry of sports,

education, and science. they were the administrative supervisors for teachers. there was the big nazi organization responsible for the hitler youth that felt responsible for the training of youth, especially along nazi lines, and then there's the teacher's union, national association teacher's union claiming jurisdiction over the classroom and bitterly opposed each other, and that in fighting creating a space where teachers could have a lot of freedom to do what they wanted to do in the classroom. when you closed the door, there were broad directions about what needed to be done in the classroom, but the decisions, the day-to-day operation of that classroom, there's a lot of freedom for teachers to do what they want. >> so now we have three video clips, three different elementary schoolteachers, or survivors, talking about their elementary schoolteachers. first we hear from ruth, and when ruth was 8 years old, she had a teacher named mrs. gunter,

she was fond of ruth and treated her well. there was no antisemitic or racial teachings in mrs. gunter's class, however, after crystal knock, the nationwide for gram against the jews of germany, ruth was expelled. we'll hear a clip of ruth's talking about what happens when one of her family members comes to school to pick her up. >> very distraught, upset, and she said, i'm not letting ruth go, she's one of my best students, i don't want her to leave, and she said, you have no choice, and deena took me home. mrs. gunter was very, very kind. she was a wonderful teacher. before i left germany, she sent two beautiful books to me, picture books, and with a dedication in them for me, and

unfortunately, i was able to carry them. we only had so much that we could carry when we actually left. >> next, we'll hear from griswald, and when he was 11 years old, he had a teacher he called "the worst nazi he ever met" giving instruction to the class on what they called race science and singled him out as an example, and here he describes one instance. >> please come and stand in front of the class. he didn't say please, any yi, just come and stand in front of the class, and i have to do so. i did to prevent myself from kind, after all, i was only at that time 11 years of age, in front of the class, and she usedded to say, you, jew, you

can recognize by nose, big nose and flat feet and so and so and so and son, and after the hour had finished, all the other children got hold of me and bashed me together, and, well, a shocking time. >> thirdly, warren con. warren was 10 years old when a new teacher came to take over his class, and this teacher had been trained in a special training facility run by the nazis. this teacher spouted nazi propaganda, antisemitic propaganda, but he also went out of his way to shield warren and the other jewish student in the class, and not just once, but he did it throughout the school year. now we'll here warren talk about one example. >> and he came from a special

school for nazi school for teachers, and he was assigned to the school. i don't think nip had anything to say about it, whether he would be accepted or not. he was there. that's all i know, and of all things, he became my class teacher, and he was, i must say, he was a very good teacher. of course, the propaganda is something terrible, and they were against jews, and after the first against jews, he called me, it was hi rein another, the only jewish students in that class, and he called us up, and said, if i say something about jews, i'm not talking about you

personally, and i'm not talking about your parents. i'm just talking about jews in general. >> help us understand what's going on with these teachers. >> you know, it's fascinating as you listen to them, you actually see three faces of what prejudice can look like. so in some ways, of course, the first guy, or the teacher who has antisemitic view and hateful towards individual children in the class, you know, is the prototypical way of prejudice, prejudice towards the whole group, to individuals standing right in front of them, but then the second teacher who hates the group, despises the group in general, but he carves out an exception for the people who are standing right in front of him saying the group as a whole is bad, but i don't mean it personally to the people who are standing right in front of me, and i actually think this is a

more insidious form of prejudice because it's the kind of prejudice that large numbers of people share, even in current times, which is we have general attitudes towards people from different groups, but we carve out exceptions for the individuals who stand before us, and it's an insidious problem because there's actually no way to correct the prejudice. if you meet someone who fits the stereotype, you tell yourself, you meet someone who doesn't meet the stereotype, but it's still true. the third case, i think, the most interesting case of the three, and i think it's presented as an inambiguous positive figure, but i wonder if we should complicate the views of how we hi about her a second. the red flag in the back of the mind is the reason she's kind to the limit girl is because this little girl is such a wonderful student.

she's the best student the teacher has had in a very long time, and it's understandable that she basically says i can't bear to part with the student because the student is such an extraordinary student. when you step back and think about that, there's something a little troubling about that because she's not saying the student has a right to be in the class because she's a student. she's saying they have she's special is an important way. when you think about the way prejudice operates in our lives, it operates in this way where it's not directed in terms of animosity, but shaped by favoritetism saying someone is really special to us, and we carve out and give them extra special treatment. the question really is, doesn't every child deserve the same kind of treatment? do you have to be the yen yows to basically be treated kindly? >> do you have any reaction? >> let me add to that about -- a

different kind of prejudice is linked to corruption so that one of the worst things, and young people tell me, i tried to encourage them to go to school, set up scholarships, and so forth and say, you know, it doesn't matter what you know, oh only who you know, that is, they begin to develop a cynicism, a pessimism that other people are getting special privileges because not because anything they've done, so in this case, in the young girl, she was the smartest kid, but you can be the dumbest kid if your uncle has a connection with the politician or owner of the factory, and so, for me, that's a devastating kind of prejudice because what it does is it undercuts kids' ability to get educated, and that's the key. that's the key to success of any young person, especially in our times, so it's a kind of

corruption and complicity where you have this system of favor -- favoritism, and that's another dimension to what you just said. >> tadd quickly here, i think part of the problem that i'm seeing here with this are the motivations of the teacher. look at the reality of the experience each teacher created for the student. either jewish students in nazi germany in the mid to late 30s, you know, a nazi dictatorship, and yet, we have widely different experiences perceived by the students. for helmand, school was a horror, for ruth, school a joy. that's a real thing, an important distinction. >> yeah, and let me just add something. i worked closely with two survivors from ash witsz, a woman who was there as a teenager, and john steiner, who was also there as a teenager. eddy is survived and a wonderful

therapist working with survivors of the abuse and so forth, and john is a cosh yowlings -- sociologist, and there's a con cement -- concept of moral latitude. in regards of playing roles, within each role, you have a latitude that your behavior can vary, so, again, eddy is with her oldest sister who is starving, and she climbs over a fence to steal carrots, and she's caught by a nazi guard, and he takes the carrots and says i'll see you tomorrow. that means you're going to get shot. the guard comes in the next day and says who is the person who stole the carrots, and she says, it was me. he said, that was brave. here's a loaf of bread for you and your sister. that's an -- it's -- so he is just recognizing her humanity, and so he had the latitude to do

that, but he could have easily killed her as anything else. apparently, even in the most extreme circumstances where you are the ss guard in a concentration camp, you know, your job is, you know, to deal with these people as if they were, you know, vermin. you is the role to be more humane or inhumane. >> will, you have an example of a police officer who exercised latitude in his realm. >> he came up in the training for law enforcement officers, a policeman named william, and he, like many of the professionals we talk about, entered government service under the old impeer yum, served through the republic, and the only reason not to work for in nazi german's day, worked up through the rankses so that by 1938, he's police commander of a precinct in the heart of berlin and heard that, you know, you talked about

chris, this nationwide against the jews in germany in 1938, they were going to burn the sip going that was in his -- synagogue that was in his district, and he pulled out an order from the keiser declaring this jewish synagogue to be a national architectural treasure, and he got it, and went down to the synagogue ordered the nazi out of the synagogue and not to do damage. they wouldn't leave until he drew the service revolver and forced them, look, i have an order, a protected building, you cannot destroy it. he had the fire department put out whatever flames were in the building and made them stand guard to protect the synagogue. it was damaged in the bombing of the war, but it was restored after, and it's a beautiful building. i have to say that his commander in chief, the berlin, was a nazi who was head of the fa, the

storm troopers in berlin, and he called him in the office saying, what were you doing and thinking when you stopped this? he said i was doing my job. i was enforcing the law. i was upholding public order, and he was begrudgingly forced to agree. now, nothing happened, he stays in the job, promoted later, and this really shows something about the power of the individual to act. >> and, philip, you have a provocative idea eluded to earlier that people are maybe not so much good people as they are skilled at the tactics of resisting authority. can you talk about those tactics? >> yeah, again, i think it's important for us to not to think in terms of good people and evil people because you pathologyize one and make the other a saint. again, it's how do we teach young people communication skills? he survived because he was able to read the situation and know

what does he have to tell the guy who could have got him in real trouble to cool the mark? really, we have to teach kids what -- you come from the ghetto in new york, it's street smarts. how do you size up every situation you're in. one of the things we promote is situational awareness, that is every situation you go in, for example, as soon as you go in, you notice where the exits are, but in every situation, you go in, you try to understand where is the power? who is the leader? she has the microphone. she's a leader, and how can you get a little more time on the podium? in every situation, all situations, again, have a latitude of power, and learning to understand power relations, social relations, and how you, as an individual, can make a difference standing up, speaking out, taking actions, again, in a

wise and effective way, and we think that's teachable, one of the things we don't teach children is persuasive communication. now, the lats thing i -- last thing i want to mention is that we move away from the notion of the solitary hero. the lesson we learn from irena that the hero of the polish ghetto is that you are most effective when you organize a network. this woman, when she understood what was happening in the war saw ghetto, that people were dying, waiting to be shipped off to concentration camps, she went in and persuaded hundreds and hundreds of jewish parents to let her take their children out. she couldn't do it alone. she organized 19 other women, women and one guy, catholics, and every day they smuggled kids out through sewers, fake cough fins, ect., and in a year and a

half, she saved 2500 kids' lives. she couldn't have done it alone. they moved the kids around from place to place, and those children had children, and now there are 10,000 polish jews who owe their lives to this woman, but this woman's brilliance was organizing that network, and that's the key. it's -- if you have this inclination to help, don't go it alone. a, if you're challenging the system, you're disdent, fanatic. the system, like you challenge corporate, system knows how to get rid of you, and, also, if you're hiding jews or helping somebody, you can be identified and then your network -- we know from martin luther king, from ghand, the power of social network. what that means, for example, is the bigger problem in the country in the world is bullies.

for every bully and the victim, there are a hundred thousands of bystanders, all of us. we were in junior high school, you saw it happened, you looked the other way saying glad it was not you. sometimes the bully is big. what's that mean? you get four or five other kids who also feel that it's wrong, and, together, you go to the bully and say what you are doing a unfair. it's terrible what you're doing to mary or charlie, and we really want you to stop, and if you do, we will be your friend. if you do nothing, you get friendship, okay? if you continue to do it, we're going to have to take serious action against you. it's a simple idea. nobody's done it. we are trying to put this into schools, but, again, it's the things you feel inadequate doing alope, once you organize a small social group, there comes a point of view. it's, you know, we think, we share this point of view, and you automatically have the power. again, we encourage kids to learn how when something is

wrong, when there's a challenge, get other people to see the situation your way. that's requiring some persuasive skills, and then it's not enough to simply identify it and feel compassionate. you have to take action. >> you gave me a great segue again because i want to bring back the last example to young people, and we have an example. will, can you tell us a little bit about this young man? >> so you're going to see on the screen a young man, he's 15 years old when he's arrested by the french police in paris. basically, what happens, the german authority introduced the jewish badge for jews in 1942 # -- 1942, and he and hundreds of his fellow youth in paris wore the jewish patch as well, non-jewish french youth, wear the badge as solidarity towards jews and protest against the occupation regime of the gentleman

occupation government. think of what that means. they arrested him because of an anti-authoritarian connection with these youths that they think are work shy individuals that are against the government and the french values. now, some of these stars had the word "swing" op them, antiauthoritarian youth groups, also cementerred, really, in paris. this is a really powerful, powerful example here. now, at the same time, he's arrested in june, 194 #2, and in the summer of 1942, the police arrest 13,000 jews in paris and hold them, and it's french police under german supervision that arrest them, barred them, and deport them, and very few return. >> you know, youth are obviously an important audience for the museum. are young people any more likely than adults to resist corrupt or

evil authority? >> you know, i think young people are not more likely than adults. essentially, the key is training. the key is education. the key to what you're doing is socializing people, not only here, but around the world. i've been in programs in italy. it's, again, getting them to see that the lessons of the past have relevance now, and that it's not enough to say, gee, it's too bad or never again. never again because of what i am now willing to do. i am not willing to stand idly by and let this happen again. the last thing i'm going to squeeze in, if you were here in the last session with this, the defense minister in germany was praising our american soldiers in the second world war saying that, you know, we have a democratic army. think back to second world war. every unit was segregated, blacks were not allowedded to

fight with whites. japanese-americans, the 442nd battalion was the most honored battalion in the entire military because they sent them into the worst battle with 90% mortality, nine out of ten japanese-americans in that unit were killed, but they were the most decorated because they fought the most extreme battles, and when they came home from service, they visited their parents in concentration camps throughout the west because every japanese-american was put into a concentration camp, and when the african-americans came back from battle, they couldn't get into a taxi cab to go from the military station or the airport home, so, again, even in our democracy, a very short time ago, 50 years ago, we practiced prejudice at that level, and they were saying blacks and japanese couldn't fight with white americans.

>> do you have any thoughts about the question of young people and -- >> so, i mean, the role young people play, it's a truism to say young people tend to be the vanguard of many social change movements. in thatceps, they play a positive role, but also keep in mind, you know, hitler inspired a huge number of young people to be nazis. being in the vanguard does not mean it's the right direction. you could be in the vanguard going in the wrong direction, and so i think that this speaks to the value of what the museum does and the importance of keeping the lessons of the holocaust current and alive today because this is not just around a history textbooks and things that happened decades and decades ago, but it has relevance in our lives today. as i wrote my book, one of the things i found the most disturbing is the research showing biases in young children, so psychologists find there are biases, riecial buy siss, gender bias, all kind of bias that adults have in chirp

as early as they can possibly measure them, as early as the children are able to talk. by the time children are two and three, they are demonstrating the same biases, and we're not talking about nazi germany in 1939, but the united states here in 2013. when we speak about the role of youth, forsure, they are an important role, important group for change, but they can be an important group for change without education or work of groups like the museum. >> right. >> so the stories we heard today are inspiring, and often times, we're asked why not focus on positive stories, the stories of young people taking action, the rescuer in belgium, of the police officer that got this amazing thing, and, philip, the last word here, why is it important that we continue to educate people that really the norm was complicity on the part of ordinary people? >> well, i mean, heros represent

the best about us. heros put themself in service to humanity. in a sense, we all have an inner hero that's really been suppressed, and the question is you don't need a war. you don't need holocaust, but how can every -- how should it be your orientations of life that every day i'm putting myself in service to others. that is, i am available to you. i make time -- okay, in our society, nobody has time, but you make time. you make time first for family, then for friends, and then for people in need of all kinds so that the whole question is heroism is a social habit you internalize. the enemy of heroism is pessimism, cynicism, ecocentrickism. to be a hero, you can make a difference. that's the subsidy throughout.

can you make a difference? the answer is could you have made a difference then, but the big question for us now is, are you going to make a difference now? this is what every parent should teach their kid to do rather than say don't get involved, don't get in trouble. we need to reverse that. get involved. do it wisely. do it effectively, form a hero squad, and then come back and tell me you made a difference. >> pretty much just gave the wrap up speech, but let me say that on the occasion of the museum's 20th anniversary, we hope that you leave here today thinking about the stories that you heard and asking not what you would have done, but what you will do. thank you, all, for coming. thanks to the panelists. [applause] ..

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> this event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the opening of the u.s. holocaust museum is taking a short break. while we wait for the next panel to begin, here's a look at some the comments from earlier today.

>> but for all of us here today, the most important finding of the human genome research is a simple one. every non-age-related difference you can see in this room and across the globe, every single one is contained in one half of 1% of our genetic makeup. we are 99.5% the same, men and women, black and white and brown, european and asian, tall and short. now, and that have a percent are things that really matter. somewhere that half of a percent albert einstein got the biggest brain and change the world. somewhere in that half of a

percent, a deaf beethoven become -- became a great composer. summer and that half of a percent, great athletic achievements were generated. but every one of us spends too much time on that half of the percent. most of us, spend 99.5% of the time thinking about half of a percent of us that is different. that makes us vulnerable to the fever and the sickness that the '90s gave to the germans -- that the nazis get to the germans. anything you do to identify those who are the other is acceptable in pursuit of power, and money. and that sickness is very alive all across the world today.

picked a target, as long as they are not you, it's okay. that's what led that beautiful pakistani girl to get shot, just because she wanted to go to school. because it threatened a group whose power rests in no small measure on its ability to control women's lives. that's how that little girl got raped and murdered in new delhi. and nobody wanted to do anything about it because she was less human. that's why a young woman and afghanistan the other day jumped off her father's house, because her arranged marriage to a man meant that he is going to force her to drop out of school when she wanted to become a doctor

and choose first in a class, because he thought she would be harmed by all the outside influences, and the she didn't go to school she could never leave house. you see this virus taking different forms, still all over the world. it is alive and well today. the thing that led people for centuries, to slaughter jews, to contain jews, to drive jews out of their homeland wherever they were living, it was all rooted in the idea that the only thing that matters is our difference. >> if we believe that the opening up the gates of our memories, we are bringing people closer together. we bring people to the realization of what a human being, a person, an individual can do. and i think of those who save lives, all these christians who

save lives while risking their own. every one of them is a hero. [applause] >> i also remember that once the organizers here when i was still involved before, this extraordinary group of people led by tom and by sarah, before that, a group of the liberators. we brought liberators from all over the world. and i spoke to them. i said, you are now the first to have seen us. you are the first free men and women who have seen us inside. bear witness. you be our witnesses. i remember i was going from one to the other, members of the resistance in poland and in hungary and in everywhere, i said, tell me, what gave you the courage to resist?

what gave you the courage to become a hero? and all of them answered me, we, heroes? and once said, look, if my neighbor was in danger, how could i not offer him a place? if a child was running the streets, how could i open the door for safety for? and i said to myself, go unto us in those times it was enough to be human to become a hero. my good friends, we are trying here, not to make the hero, but to make the visitor a messenger. president clinton, 20 years ago, here in this place but outside, it was raining.

we were soaked, both you and i. our shoes were in water. i saw them, yours and mine. president clinton, i remember then that i came to speak. we had worked on my speech the entire night, literally the entire night, and then i opened my folder. if ever i was closely heart attack, it was then. [laughter] it was soaked. i couldn't decipher a word. had i tried to remember what i said, it would have been a disaster. so i had to improvise a new one, and that's when i turned to you, mr. president, and i spoke to

you about yugoslavia. i had just come back from there. what we must do in the name of our memory, what we must do to help those people from becoming victims of one another. and i remember you promised, america will do, and then you were kind enough to send me -- to yugoslavia. that moment, mr. president, was not forgotten by either myself or myself, or my friends. and that moment, mr. president, you and i became friends. and that you know, to me friendship is a religion. and that is one of the most noble religions without any fanatical danger. it's a most beautiful one. and to have you here now 20 years later is more than a

privilege. it is a gift. >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> testing, testing. we are going to get started.

canada will take their seats? hopefully we will be, let the light people drift in. -- the late people drift in. so, welcome to our session on preventing genocide in the 21st century. my name is micah, and i direct our new center on the prevention of genocide. and the subject that we're going to talk about today is a very important subject in one that has been at really part of the museum mission since it opened in 1993, 20 years ago. that doctors often said he wanted to be a living memorial and has talked about how a memorial unresponsive to the future would violate the memory of the past. and that really animated the creation of a committee on conscience which still exist and is chaired by michael chertoff and it also animates the work of

our center for prevention of genocide, which tries to carry out the mandate of the committee on conscience by doing public education and outreach to policymakers to try to really focus the world attention on the ongoing threat of genocide in our time. i'm incredibly thrilled and honored that we have present with us today tony blink and, a full disclosure. tony is a very dear personal friend of mine and give someone who is widely respected among his peers for his deep commitment to public service. tony is now at the white house as a deputy national security advisor. and you have seen in his resume which should be in your packet is very, very impressive professional resume. i think for our purposes one of the important things that he has been working on that we will talk about today is the work of

the new atrocity prevention board and the commitment of the obama administration to try to prevent atrocity. i also think it's relevant that tony also has a very strong personal commitment to issues of holocausholocaus t memory that probably for a variety of reasons also stems from the fact that his stepfather is a very prominent holocaust survivor, samuel, survived auschwitz and became a very distinguished french jurist after that. so i thought that we might just start our talk today, before give them an opportunity, i want to show you a video clip we have of one of our survivor volunteers who, this is messy who survived auschwitz and she talked a little bit about the connection can her own connection of the story of the current they genocide. dana, do we have that video to

show? >> although i was in france and i knew what was happening in darfur, but that woman standing there and saying in broken english, how she succeeded, how she came here. i thought to myself, it sounds like me years ago. how did i survive? because homeless, not to have anything left, just hope, just hope. and the world was silent while we were suffering. and i said, we cannot be silent again. and i told the young woman who standing there, and i said yes, we are going to stand, i personally am going to stand with you, shoulder to shoulder,

and not allow the world to be silent. >> so, tony, that video is a very powerful call for our action here. first of all, welcome. i just wanted, give you an opportunity to make some opening remarks but if you talk about your own personal association with the holocaust and how it continues to inspire the work that you do. >> michael, thank you. it's very good to be with a close friend. it is especially good to be with all of you and to be here at this remarkable institution. as michael said it has a particular resonance for me, and i imagine there's some survivors among us today. i salute all of you. it has a resonance for number of reasons. so many of us as americans have our own stories, our own narratives that tie back to that time. and other difficult times that

brought us or brought our forebears to the united states. my grandfather, my father's father, fled poland at the turn of the last century. my step mother fled communism in hungary after the second world war. and as mike mentioned, my stepfather is a survivor. and i grew up in part within and heard the stories. heard the experience. he is from poland. there were 900 children into school, and to our knowledge he is the only survivor of that school. but the reason i felt that it was important to be here is because this is a living institution, and it's a living institution in two ways. is a living institution because those who perished have a life, thanks to everything that the museum does.

they are still with us, they are present, they animate us. but it's also a living institution because of the work that michael and his colleagues do in terms of a atrocity prevention. taking the story, the history, the remembrance and turning it into a tool, not only to remember the past so that we don't forget it, but to do something about the present. and that's why it's so vital and that's what i applaud what you and your colleagues are doing. and so it's good to be here. >> thank you, tony. i'm going to show one more clip but i think will help bring the conversation. a year ago president of the other states came to our museum almost exactly a year ago to announce what we think was a very important new initiative to really make genocide at atrocity prevention much more of a central part of u.s. policymaking. i'm proud to say, one of the proudest things i think the museum has done that lot of the key recommendations were drawn from the genocide prevention

task force so i thought we should listen to the president a little bit you for we had a conversation about it. >> its bitter truth. too often the world has failed to greet event the killing -- to prevent the killing. we are haunted by the atrocities we did not stop and the lies we did not save. three years ago today i joined many of you for a ceremony of remembrance at the u.s. capital. i said that we had to do everything we can to prevent and end atrocities. some want to report back to some of you today. to let you know that as president i have done my utmost to back up those words with these. last year in the first ever presidential directive on this shot i made it clear that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the

united states of america. >> those are very powerful words from the president, saying it is a core national security interest in the united states. can you, tony, give us a report card of what's happened in the last year and tell us about the reforms and what you've done and how you think they're working? >> i think the first very important thing to say is that if the president is the father of this initiative, the patron saint of it is actually in this room, and that's samantha power your. [applause] no one, no one has done more than samantha to bring the vision the present articulate to life. she recently left government, hopefully not for long, but in her time this is one of her many extraordinary achievements.

and let me talk a little bit about what we've been trying to do. and i want to emphasize this is really a work in progress. so the president asked us a year or so ago to spend 100 days looking at how the government is organized, or not organized, to prevent atrocities. and we were inspired by work that was sponsored by this institution, a genocide prevention task force chaired by madeleine albright and bill cohen, did extraordinary work that helped animate our own thinking and give us a lot of very, very good ideas upon which we acted. so we had that work. we did an internal review to look at how we were organized, and we came up with some initiatives to try and make real what the president talked about. there are a number of things we've done. the most important of which is the creation of the atrocity prevention board.

when you don't work in government, it is sometimes hard to fathom why organization and process is almost as important to what you actually do. but it makes a huge difference. because governments like any other things in life is about priorities. you have to make something a priority in order to make sure the resources are dedicated to come a time and energy is dedicated to it, the focus is dedicated to. and what the atrocities prevention board does, and samantha was the chair, is it brings together senior people across our government and it does two things. it tries to look out on the horizon and see the emerging risks and challenges, potential atrocity in the making, to identify them before they happen. and then it works across government to develop new tools to do something about it. not just to react after the fact but ideally to prevent before the fact. and this has had a powerful

impact already on the way we do business. because it also, in doing this work, forces senior officials throughout governments to be responsive. the board will bring to others in government the problems they have identified, ideas for being with them and then we have to confront them. so this has been a major, major innovation in the way government works. it is still in its infancy. we are still developing it as a tool, but it has already made a difference every day. we have worked also very hard on early warning. we brought in the intelligence community in a way that it had not been brought in before. asking it to do for the first time something we call an national intelligence estimate, to look out and to try to predict where problems might emerge. because if you don't catch these things before they start, once they start, it is for reasons we can get into, infinitely harder. so we have a greater ability,

thanks to marshaling the resources of our intelligence community, to luck out and try to see something before it comes up and bites us. we have worked hard on a number of other things. we have been working on accountability and trying to make sure that those who would perpetrate atrocities know that they will be held accountable. there's been increase cooperation, for example, with the international criminal court. this is something we may want to get into later. and we have worked very hard to build the capacity of others because we can't do this alone and that means the united nations. it means other countries, and it means even internally the capacity of our own government to deal with atrocity prevention. so all of this is a work in progress but it starts with what the president said which is that he identified this as not just a moral imperative but a national security priority. that's what makes the difference. it's all too easy in government to say, look, there are tons of problems out there, we come it would be great if we could do something about them, but we

just can't and it doesn't have to our core interests. what the president said is atrocity prevention is a core interest, it's a national secret interest here and that is helped focus the government on being more proactive, trying to get ahead of the problem, not fall behind it. >> thank you tony. i would like to come talk about some of the current cases that the board and the governor are looking at but i did want to look at what historical case. we're chatting about an agreement beforehand, and we had president clinton your who gave a very moving talk this morning at our maiden tribute event. president clinton's been very forthright and apologizing for what happened during the rwandan genocide, almost 20 years ago, where 800,000, mostly -- were murdered in three months in rwanda. as you think about the past, and you are at a much lower level in

the clinton administration, but have you thought about why the united states, along with the rest of the international community, was so paralyzed and unable to act on rwanda? >> i think any of us who are in government in whatever capacity at the time are still scarred by that experience. it's something you have to live with, and it's a motivating factor i think in the way we look at problems today. we will probably talk about this later, when you see syria and you see a congo, it is in a sense doubly painful because we have that memory of having been in the position of responsibility when the rwandan genocide happened. i think two things i would say. one is, it's so much harder to be effective once something is started than it is obviously before it is started.

because when atrocities have already broken out, the decisions faced seem to be much more limited. it looks like your options are very narrow. you start to see the world as an almost binary choice between taking action, which often translates into military action, and doing nothing. and it's a very, very difficult position you find yourself in. so in thinking about it, my hope is that everyone would actually be a little bit less likely to happen today. for a couple of reasons. one, we are more focused on prevention than we were them. we are looking out and try to scan the horizon to see things emerge before they become a full-blown atrocity. we have a better early warning mechanism than we did back in 1994. we also have better assets. i think united nations and peacekeeping have come a long way from where they were over a decade ago.

and we've spent a lot of time and effort trying to build up that system to but i fear comes back to something else but because back to identifying your priority. i went back and looked, and i look at what not only the government was doing and saying back in 94 but also what some of the major newspapers were writing. and in 1984 -- die for, excuse me, the "washington post" wrote that rwanda really didn't go to our national interest. and it didn't make sense to get involved. precisely because the president has tried to refocus us, because he is trying to make atrocity prevention a core security interest. i think we look at these problems in a different way. obviously, you can look out there and say, well, it's early not true across the board. we still have horrific problems incident. with syria, we have congo. but i would like to think that we are working on those, not as

effectively as we would like to, but we are. and i think that more to the point, or we are more focused than we were in 94 in getting ahead of these problems. >> your point, tony, about prevention versus response, how the options really narrow after atrocities are conflicts begin is very appreciated. those are the cases that really focus the mind that focus government attention, and i think i would like to talk for a few minutes about the case of syria. so in the course of the two year civil war i think these numbers are right, we've had about at least 70,000 civilian deaths, many of those people have died noncombatants, the part of messier, atrocities. we had last night at a dinner, we have the u.n. high commissioner of refugees who told me personally of the incredible displacement going

on. we have now some 2 million people displaced either internally or refugees. i mean, this is an atrocity that is happening in slow motion before our eyes. why in this case do you think the international committee is so paralyzed to act? and do you think, now we have reports that assad they had used or did use chemical weapons which makes it even more dangerous. what are your thoughts about, number one, why is it so difficult for the world to act in a preventive way when everyone agrees you say prevention is better? and number two, what might be some concrete steps forward? >> so let's talk about it for i do, i want to point a couple of instances where we actually have been able to act preventively. it's one of those things it's hard to prove what would've happened had we not acted, we don't know but we can imagine. and so for example, over a year ago into the and we were on the

eve of a referendum, the creation of south sudan, and it was an extraordinarily fragile situation that threatened to revert back to a civil war that has claimed hundreds of thousands by some accounts, far more lives. we engaged very intensely starting with the president, galvanizing the international community to get behind the referendum, to make sure that the parties stood behind it and that they let it go forward. ended to go forward and as imperfect as the situation is, we have the creation of a new state, south sudan. we are in a far better place than we were, and again, you can't say what would've happened if we had not engaged but i would like to think that we acted in a preventive way. you have a president who lost an election come insisted on hanging onto power, threatened violence and everything was in place for a significant

atrocity. again, there, too, we engaged with international partners, the united nations had a peacekeeping effort, did a very effective job. and as a result, the losing president left the country. he is now in the hague, and we have a return to democracy. and then, of course, libya, where the donkey was threatening benghazi -- moammar gadhafi was threatening benghazi, to prevent what would've been, and i profoundly believe would have been a horrific slaughter your we marshal the united nations here we use a unique military assets to help other countries use their speed and the result is as difficult as it is today i believe we prevented a terrible atrocity there as well. but syria is i think for all of us tremendous frustration.

let's be clear though. we haven't done nothing. we have done a lot, but we obviously haven't done enough to change the facts on the ground. when the crisis came syria began and in particular, when assad turned on his own people, we began to play a lead role in trying to bring the international kennedy to get them to do something about it. we have taken a number of steps that are not insignificant. we have worked very hard to isolate the syrian government and the assad regime. economically and politically. the sanctions that have been applied are starving the regime of money to make it more difficult to buy off those who supported. isolated politically around the world with dozens of countries joining the coalition to isolate the syrian government. at the same time we have worked

very hard to build up the opposition to make it credible, to give the tools, to make it more effective. it's incredibly slow. it's difficult work in progress, but it is happening. just a week ago secretary kerry was in istanbul and announced a doubling of our assistance to the civilian opposition, and also for the first time significant assistance to the military of the oppositiooppositio n including nonlethal but nonetheless important items that would support them in combat, things like protective gear, body armor, night vision goggles and so forth. so he is done that to try to make them more effective. third, the united states is and remains by far the largest humanitarian donor to syria in its time for me. as mike, you said, this crisis internally and externally is reaching extraordinary proportions. by the aspen of united nations about six and a half million people are in need within syria,

and refugees, including especially in jordan and turkey and lebanon and to some extent iraq, not only are facing terrible situations for themselves, but are beginning to have a very difficult impact on the countries that are good enough to host them. we are working to take a lead role in time to do something about that. and we are also trying to prepare for the day after assad, including making sure that the e chemical weapons that all too present in syria are accounted for and secured, and trying to keep the state together. and, finally, where we have been trying to drive this cut and we haven't succeeded to date, but let me explain what we're trying to do and why we're trying to do it. we have been trying to drive this political transition, where assad and the regime give up power, transition it to some kind of authority, and ultimately elections are held at a democratic government takes over. why is it is so important?

because absent that kind of managed transition it is very likely that the state will fall apart. that its institutions will fall apart, and that the fragmentation results in a failed state that becomes home to extremist groups, in which chemical weapons are floating around and getting into the wrong hands, and in which people are suffering. and so we put it tremendous diplomatic effort in trying to bring people together towards a solution. obviously, we haven't gotten there yet. so that's what we're trying to do. but meanwhile, michael, as you said, tens of thousands of people have been killed, and now millions of people are in dire need. and is a very unsatisfying place to be. it's something that preoccupies all of us that we are working on every single day. i think you asked why is it so hard, there's another factor. we spent in the united states

the last decade plus engaged in two wars, and we spent the last four years working to get out of those worse. we ended the war in iraq. we are on a glide path to end the war in afghanistan. there is understandably a profound caution in taking steps that could possibly engaged the united states again in another conflict, particularly in that part of the world. and so, the president is working on this in a way that is very deliberate, very focused, and my hope is where able to move syria to a better place in the coming months. let me just died one quick example of where managed transition of this kind has actually worked better than i think anyone anticipated, and that is in yemen, where very much what we're trying to do in syria has actually happened and has made life a lot better. so that's what we're working on. i hope the next time we get together we have a better story to tell.

>> we have a few minutes left. we could spend the whole time talking about syria but i do want to say also parts of the world, i'm thinking particularly in large parts of sudan as well as the eastern part of congo that don't really get the headlines or the attention from my former colleague. you know, and during, in darfur, for instance, there was, we think several hundred thousand people died in an ethnic cleansing campaign, genocide 10 years ago. so what can be done about these situations that don't really get the kind of attention from the press, from the public, from policymakers? as you pointed out, the american public is war weary and that is doubly true of a place like sudan or eastern congo, where arguably millions of people are

at risk in those places. >> i think one of the frustrations, especially for advocates, is you go through a period where a particular issue, a particular crisis suddenly catches on public consciousness. in large part because of the work that institutions like yours do, advocacy groups, and darfur is a very good example of the. i think you can all remember not so very long ago when darfur was on the front pages of our papers, what was featured prominently in presidential campaigns, and that's no longer the case. attention moves on. focus moves on. the slightly, only slightly reassuring thing i can say is that government actually does move on. we continue to work on the panoply of problems in sudan and

south sudan, in an intensive way virtually every day. as i mentioned a little while ago, we put tremendous effort into making sure the referendum that led to the creation of south sudan to place, and i believe that had that not happened we would have seen a return to a north-south civil war that would have claimed many, many more lives. as we speak we are engaged in darfur, engaged both with the government in sudan and with rebel groups, working on both to try and come to a more lasting peace process. we are engaged in other parts of the country, whether it's blue now, south kordofan, abyei, to try to move the parties to a better place. and we're going to name hopefully very -- 37 and you envoy to sudan to pick up on extraordinary work that some of you may know him recently did.

i think what happens is, and again frustrating, but a lot of his moves out of the spotlight but it was out of the headline, but it does move out of the work of government. and many of these problems have and the tractable quality to them. we have seen a few things that are probably a little premature to talk about in public to suggest that there may be some more positive openings in sudan in the days and weeks and months ahead, that we will see as that develops. >> i would like one more question. we are about out of time but i just want to delve deeper into an issue that you touched on in your opening remarks which is about accountability. this is a very important issue to our museum. we have an extensive discussion in our -- about nuremberg. when you think about nuremberg it's kind of incredible that they not see high command -- nazi eichmann was basically charged, tried and essence

carried out within a year. and now we have situation like in cambodia where the perpetrators, their trials last for years and years and years. can you just tell us briefly a little bit more about the obama administration's approach to these accountability issues, what you're trying to push? and also just candidly your thoughts about the international criminal court, which is something that the american public community has been somewhat ambivalent about. >> it's pretty simple. accountability is imperative. it is imperative for two reasons. one, it is a moral imperative. but beyond that it is actually a strategic imperative in the way we look at these problems. here's why. one of the biggest drivers of atrocities is ingenuity. if someone believes they can get away with it, they will try to

get away with it. and one of the best checks against that is accountability. and that's why it's so important that we try to set that standard international institutions try and set that standard, other countries try to set that standard. and we've been working on the. let me give you a few examples. first and maybe most important, with regard to the international criminal court we find ourselves more and more in alignment with the court a number of areas. and we have taken steps to demonstrate that. we voted for i guess just a few, a short while ago a referral of libya to the international criminal court which is the first time we have done so at the united nations security council referred matter to the criminal court. we got behind that. we have been urging countries around the world not to support or cooperate with those who are indictees of the court, so that

could be more effective. and just recently we had the surrender of a leading rebel and and i.t. to our embassy guy who worked with the court to hand him over. we are not at the point where we are changing our decision about joining, for two reasons. and i know this is frustrating to a lot of people. one, we have to look out for our men and women in uniform. for better or force, they play often a unique role around the world, and protecting them is something that is a priority for us. but second, we believe that we have the institutions at home to do the work that come in terms of accountability, including our own accountability, that other countries don't have. that as i said increasingly, we find ourselves in alignment with the work of the court, and my belief is as we go forward we

will see more and more of that. but it really comes back to the first principle, which is absent accountability, absent that imperative, you are not only doing a moral and justice, you are doing a practical and justice to your ability to actually stop atrocities. >> tony, i wish we could talk for another hour. it's been fascinating, but it's been a great conversation and i think what it really focuses on is the fact that we have a lot of work to do. you have to be, one has to be honest about one's failures, but i think, i agree, there has been progress over the last 20 years. and if they put a lot of work to do at the museum, and also in the broader society and the government to do a better job in the future. most of all, i really wanted to express my appreciation on behalf of the museum. you're a busy person and it means a lot to us you came here to talk about these issues. i would like add one to give tony blinken a round of applause, and thank you for

being here. >> thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> this event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the opening of the u.s. holocaust museum is taking a short break. while we wait for the next panel to begin, here's a look at some of the comments from earlier today. >> but for all of us here today, the most important findings of the human genome research is a simple one. every non-age-related difference you can see in this room, and across the globe, every single one is contained in one half of 1% of our genetic makeup. we are 99.5% the same.

men and women, black and white and brown, european and asian, tall and short. now, and that half of a percent are things that really matter. somewhere in that half of a percent albert einstein got the biggest brain we've ever made. and changed the world. somewhere and that half of a percent, a deaf beethoven became a great composer. somewhere in that half of a percent, great athletic achievements were generated. but every one of us spends too much time on that half of a percent. most of us been 90 spend 99.5% of our time thinking about the half of a percent of us that is different from everybody else. and that makes us vulnerable to the fever and the sickness that

the nazis gave to the germans, to think that all that matters is the difference in anything you do to identify those who are the other is acceptable in pursuit of power and money and influence. and that sickness is very alive all across the world today. pick a target, as long as they are not you, it's okay. that's what led that beautiful pakistani girl to get shot, just because she wanted to go to school. because it threatened a group whose power resisting, rest in no small measure on its ability to control women's lives. that's how that little girl got

raped and murdered in new delhi. and nobody wanted to do anything about it because she was less human. it's why a young woman in afghanistan the other day jumped off her father's house, because her a range to marriage to a man meant that he was going to force her to drop out of school, when she wanted to become a doctor and she was first in her class, because he thought she would be really harmed by all the outside influences, and if she didn't go to school she could never leave the house. >> you see this virus taking different forms still all over the world. it is alive and well today. the thing that led people for centuries to slaughter jews, to contain jews, to drive jews out of their homelands wherever they were living, it was all rooted

in the idea that the only thing that matters is our difference. >> we have all these wonderful monuments here. the lincoln memorial, jefferson's memorial with his own quote saying, when he thought of slavery he trembled to think that god was just. the roosevelt memorial, reminding us his personal courage in the face of his adversity. the world war ii memorial on and on and on and on. the washington monument, sort of a metaphor for the strength of washington in our beginning. they all give something to our country and to visitors from around the world who come here. but the holocaust memorial will be our conscience, and will be here as our conscience. [applause]

from now, forever. >> we behave that the opening up the gates of our memory, we are bringing people closer together. to bring people now to the united nations of what a perfect, a human being, a person, an individual can do. and i think of those who saved lives, all these christians who saved lives while risking their own. every one of them is a hero. [applause] i also remember that once the organizers here when i was still involved, this extraordinary group of people led by tom ambassador, before they would organize a group of liberators. we brought liberators all over

the world, and i spoke to them. i said, you are now the irst to have seen us. you are the first free men and women who have seen us inside. bear witness. ub.net witnesses. i remember, i was going from one to the other, members of the resistance in poland and hungary, and enabler. i said, tell me, what gave you the courage to resist? what gave you the courage to become a hero? and all of them answered me, we, heroes? people are not heroes at all. and once said, look, if my neighbor was in danger, how could i not offer him a place? if a child was banished industries, how could i open up the door to save him/her? and i said to myself, while on two of us. and those times it was enough to

be human, to become a hero. my good friends, we are trying here, not to make the biggest -- but to make a messenger. president clinton, 20 years ago, here in this place but outside, it was raining. [laughter] we were soaked, both you and i. our shoes were in water. i saw them, yours and mine. president clinton, i remember then that i came to speak. we had worked on my speech the entire night, literally the entire night. and when i opened my folder, if ever i was close to a heart

attack, it was then. [laughter] .. >> you were kind of enough to send me to yugoslavia. that moment, mr. president, will not be forgotten by either my wife or myself or my friends,

and that moment, mr. president, you and i became friends, and as you knto me, friendship is an alegion, one of the most noble because any fanatical danger is a most beautiful one, and to have you here now 20 years later is more than a privilege. it is a gift. still waiting for the holocaust museum event to resume. while we wait, here's a look at homeland security issues in the aftermath of the boston marathon bombings from today's "washington journal." [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> host: today marks two weeks since the boston marathon bombing, and even as the investigation continues, law enforcement and lawmakers continue to study for lessoned learned. we are joined by a former white house special assistant for homeland security and directer of the george washington's homeland security policy institute to discuss these issues, and a lot of institutions on the sunday shows yesterday over whether the u.s. information system failed leading up to this incident.

we want to play a clip of senator lindsey graham on "face the nation." >> the fbi investigated the older brother, but never shared the information with the cell in boston so people in boston could be on the lookout. when he goes back to russia? january 2012, the dhs doesn't share of the information with the fbi or the cia, and when he comes back in 2012, he creates a youtube channel of his own making where he got radical extremist videos that he's watching and interacting with, so it's a failure to share information and missing obvious warning signs, back to the pre-9/11 stove piping. >> host: your thoughts, talking about stove piping and failure of information sharing. >> guest: you know, information sharing is always a challenge, not just among federal, state, and local authorities, but monk federal

agencies themselves. i think it's army -- early to point too far in what was and what was not shared, but, clearly, we know the information was untied, which is a big data base, a watch list of sorts, even though that's not the formal name, as a person of concern. as to whether or not that information was fully tapped, utilized, and extrapolated is the real question here. i think that six months traveling overseas in russia, that's where you're going to find a lot of information, a lot of clues, hopefully, that put together the entire mosaic of the investigation. >> go back to the senator's comments on stove piping. i want to talk about the issue. here we are 11 and a half years after september is 11th, is there concern about stove pipes coming back in? your guy who helped build up the homeland security apparatus after the attacks? >> you know, there is the saying that prior to 9/11, we had a montra of need to know, and then

after 9/11, there was the montra of need to share. the question is are we sharing the right information, and here, the tide, the data bases themselves are relatively classifieded or highly classified, actually so not sure precisely -- >> for you sitting in the back, if you wouldn't be more comfortable coming up front, but that's your choice. i'm marvin, for a long part of my life, i was a journalist, a network cor speedometer, and for the last 25 years, i've been a professor at harvard, and i like to write books, and when the holocaust museum provides an opportunity for me to do something, i generally grab it. today, it's going to be interesting, we'll try, but anyway, today, joined by dr. stiewch lucker, curator of the exhibition at the united

states holocaust memorial museum, steve, and the low education mark research professor of law in the school of law. i need not remind any of you that the holocaust happened nearly 70 years ago in one of the most sophisticated and educated reasons of -- regions of the world. the nazi propgan that machine was a highly sophisticated organization using the most current technologies of the day to extend the party's appeal to the broad german public. since that time, we've seen remarkable technological progress. today's program is called "technology in the hands of haters," and now put yourself in a computer mode for a minute and think about www.thirdreich.com,

thinking what the regime might have done with the power of the internet and social media at their disposal. our panel will explore the increasingly complicated world that we live in and will probably also ask a question that i think is central to what it is that we have been discussing here for the last day or so, and that is whether moral progress can keep up with technological progress, whether human nature, like technology, is what we make of it. what if the great insights was the power of mass communications, and what it did made possible by the newest technology. the nazi propganda ministry took control of the press, film, television, movie, theater, everything. during the subsequent two decades, nazi leaders use the

the technology ever their day, such as radio, which is what was in that time, show k -- showing the world bold ways to showcase their political platform. let's look at a film clip in berlin in 1933. it was the major trade show for radio manufacturers in germany. even before they came to power, in 193 # 3 -- 1933, the nazi party set up a booth fair, an indication of its growing interest in radio. [inaudible conversations]

[speaking german] [inaudible conversations] [speaking jeer -- [speaking german] [inaudible conversations] >> it's interesting. when i look at a radio clip of that sort, and i started in radio in 1957, i started in radio thinking it's a means of communication, it's a way of informing the public. in their hands, it was a means of communication, but it was a means of forming public opinion, of taking control of it, and i have to ask steve this first sort of opening question, and it's an obvious question, but forgive me, how did the nazis rise to power in one of the most highly educated, sophisticated countries in the world?

>> well, marvin, you asked a very good question. the nazi party, when you look back, it began after the first world war, it grew out of the turmoil there, but in a relatively short amount of time. they went from political obscurity to political prom nensz. 1928, the nazi party had 12 seats in the german parliament of over 500 seats. two years later, they had 107 seats. two years after that,230. they did something that no political party in germany had ever done, to go from being nothing to being the largest political party represented in the german parliament. they did it in the span of a couple years, and one of the ways they did it was by getting their message across during the

great depression in which you had an environment, in which there was a lot of discontent with the status quo, and the nazi presented themselves as the solution. they were political outsiders, and that they could change things. >> it's interesting, you use the word "solution," in other words they didn't present themselves as an alternative, but as a solution, which is quite a different theme. adolf hitler declared in his book in 1925, "propaganda is a truly terrible weapon in the hands of an expert." interesting. looking at that, what was so revolutionary, really, about this poster? it seems so obvious, and do you see any similarities in how that poster affected public opinion, perhaps how political campaigns are operating today?

danielle what's your thought? >> i think what's certainly interesting is that, you know, you were talking about in the hands of the nazis, we had a communication that they were able to convince everyone of their point as redemptive; right? or a solution that in least some respects, there's a diversity to speak op line, that perhaps some of the concerns about control in the hands of -- it was hitler there, control of the media, perhaps there's promise that we have something positive to think of because it's so decentralized, the means of communication, that in some sense, it makes me hopeful for a counter speech. >> steve, what was the most forward looking, unique, imaginative way in which the nazis used the new technology of their time? >> well, i think the nazis were very shrewd in understanding the

power of modern technology. already in the early 1920s, for instance, they were producing their own films, and they went -- they made the transition from silent films to sound films, and they also saw -- when they came into power, they had control over the media, over radio, but they were also sophisticated to know that if you just put out blatant progan proganda, political speech after political speech, audiences would be tired of it, turning the channel on the radio or shut it off so they combine it with entertainment, and they had a lot of light music, and they realized their political messages that audiences became more receptive to those after listening to that entertainment. >> we do a good bit of entertainment here too. >> you know what's interesting is that the neonazi website is aimed at children, video games

how to kill the jews, interactive videos and music built around the neonazi themes. as efficient as it was then, they are learning the lessons, unfortunately. >> as we know, today's technology is more sophisticated, and as we'd expect, hate groups around the world are harnessing these technologies to spread their message. let's take a look at this german neonazi group that calls itself the immortals using digital technology on the web to garner support for their message. >> they appear in the middle of the night, unannounced and armed with torches. their faces hidden behind plain white masks. it is a frightening scene that resembles the nazi torch marchs of the 1930s, but this was film months ago in germany, filmed by

neonazi thoamses. after the march, they upload the video on the interpret to show their ideology adding music to support the music that multiculturism is killing germany. >> it's interesting yowssments can see from the images that the group posted, it appears to be a mass gathering of people. in reality, these marchs attract only a few hundred people at best, but they use the video to make the group seem much more powerful, much more pervasive. they are manipulating the video, and that is a game that a lot of people can play, so my question for danielle, in and ever -- in and of itself, is this video dangerous? >> you know, when -- okay, so i think two parts to the question. so when we think of from first amendment law, it's something

inhairntly dangerous, is there a clear and present danger? there has to be a threat of imminent violence that's likely, and so in some republics, no, it's totally protected speech, but as you elude to powerfully, the notion of ill lotion -- illusion of large numbers, we think we're supported, those on the fensz, if they see the video, seems like so many people support the message, they are convinced people move to greater extremes if they think a large number of people agree with them. they are inclined to be more extreme if they think there's more supporters for this vision. so in that respect, it's dangerous. >> is there anything rem -- rem necessary cant? >> it is. with the torches going through the cities. this is -- this goes -- the nazis pioneered in this, even the idea of making the

procession looking larger, going around the corner making circles, but what i think is interesting about the video is that the german government cracked down on this group. >> oh, really? >> and they raided their headquarters, took their materials, arrested, i think, about 27 members of the group they could not shut down the website because a lot of the -- this group and other extremist group locate servers outside of germany and other countries where the laws don't prohibit that, so in this particular case, the website was in switzerland so the german government had no authority over that, and so the videos circulate on youtube, they still circulate on various online sites, and other groups have copied these same marchs,

and so even though this group has been suppressed by the government, others have copied them, and the videos still circulate. >> raises a couple interesting questions, and having to do with sites, computer sites, that you will find at facebook, twitter, itself, they provide hitler's ideological descendents with a powerful tool. the former administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs in the obama white house in the president's first term. he described in a "new york times" article how properly packaged messages of hate can spread and how hard it is for fact and reason to catch up. let me read that. suppose you saw with a strong, but basely conviction, that nefarious people conspire against your kind.

the best medicine is no medicine. if so, you can ready discover the support for your views because of web, too, enclaves of like-minded people are found or emerge in an instant. a lot of empirical work establishes that when people sort themselves to such enclaves, they tend to become more confident, more unified, and more extreme, so is technology making people more dismissive of views, more toller rand of extremist views? >> i think of the internet as a force multiplier, good and bad. to the extent what technology does is give us access to so many more people, and they would not get off line for practical reasons, could come together,

and so it exacerbates our tendencies to think a certain way and to the extent that we are just hearing the same thing over and over again, and sites link to like-minded sites, and we become as was said, far more extreme in our views. i think that's right. >> but, i mean, the question there is a greater tolerance of extremism. >> right. >> isn't that right? >> i think that's right. there's an interesting study from pugh that suggests that we're much more polarized today, much more extreme. i think we see some of that in the politics; right? we can't remoltly come together, right, because we are so polarized. >> our political and culture polarization more pervasive in america today? the answer to that question is fairly obvious. >> yeah. >> but what happens when the public creates content on the internet, and there is no organized system to rely on to

get at the curse? steve? >> well, that's a challenge because it -- you face the obstacle of who polices the internet, and do you even use the words "police the internet"? those argue strongly in favor of the free speech, the first amendment, and then they fear that for instance, if you have some type of governmental control over the interpret, that it could be used to suppress political opposition, and that even in some of the laws, for instance, the european union has issued about hate speech. some of the challenges to that have. , well -- have been, well, suppose, a government wants to use it to attack political disdense, they can charge with hate speech ore shut down any political opposition, so there's -- it's a

very difficult situation, and who is responsible for it? how do you actively, you know, supervise the internet? should you? >> there are a couple of specifics i want to raise with y'all, issues of social media, a little more closely. holocaust denials is a crime in germany, and in many other european countries, yet, listen, facebook bans hate speech, which is a good thing, but it does allow the proliferation of holocaust denial pages, and facebook explains that decision by saying it recognizes people's right to be factually wrong about historical events. i think that we can all buy into that very, very quickly, but there's the other side of this because critics will argue that

holocaust denials is by it's very definition an expression of hatred for the jewish people, so, danielle first. it's interesting. just trying to think of the right way of phrasing that, but we are opposed, generally speaking in this country, to censorship. >> right. >> and yet there may come a time when you think the need is there because to allow certain things to happen, you're going to go down a very slippery path, so explain to us what the lawyers are saying about this. >> right. so we generally say, look, we don't want government, as you say, to pick winners and losers in the realm of ideas because the fear is their government will censor dissent, certainly, the same power; right? >> right. >> there's some views, though, that i think as a society, we say, look, that's not acceptable. we're a country built on notions of equality, that to say that the holocaust never happened or that, you know, you think of the

traps from the past that african-americans are criminals, thinking of a famous supreme court case where, you know, you have basically defamation of groups. we now say, look, even though we all agree that this is an uncivil thing to say, and it's demeaning of someone's equality, we let you say it, and facebook's further reasoning is we let you be stupid in your own name; right? so as long as those pages are associated with profiles with people's name, we'll let social shaming take hold, so that's some of the reasoning, so the first amendment story is they let you say, let you be stupid and offensive speech, if it's about political issues or public issues that the public can legit mall -- legitimately think about, you can say it. >> the mother of the young boys picked up in the boston massacre

-- >> yeah. >> she said that 9/11 didn't happen, that was it a made up thing. where does she get that from? where does it enter her mind? she hears that. >> right. >> from people who are loading up the web in order to create a certain political impression. this became -- this whole issue, really, is terrifying when you think about the political consequences of the country such as the united states. this became a prominent issue, by the way, in a response to a video put out called "innocence of muslims," released on youtube. youtube removed viewing access of the video in the united states as well as restricting its viewing capabilities in egypt and libya. with the exception of some small protests, the initial response to the video in the muslim world was in large part temperate

until it began to be exploited by dangerous and market driven impulses in the media and diverted international semicrisis. was this video inhairntly violent or a dopey video that was released? what do you think? >> okay. so i think it was -- i mean, in the way that we understand the insightment, imminent violence, it was not, but like any pretty good propaganda and the people behind what followed that video, i think that's right, the secondary set of conversations, that's insightment; right? the video, i think, itself is offensive, it's demeaning, but i don't think -- it certainly would not amount to what we think of as true calls for violence, but i think that's right. it's a powerful tool because of the way they use it, but they

have the machinery of propaganda of what steve was talking about, but we have an outrange, right, that causes the death, stevens killed; right? >> steve, you explored the nazi petered, the phenomena, in which how they used propaganda, used innocent information -- >> uh-huh. >> turn itedded around for -- turned it around for their political purposes, and they were, within their world, successful, but what is your gut feeling how this plays out today? in a country like the united states? >> well, i think the same types of messaging go on. when i look at the, for instance, on the on the interpret, whether that's facebook or youtube k and you see some of the -- i've been following a number of european extremist groups, and a lot of the messaging that they use very similar to what the nazis were

doing, not just in terms of the hate messaging, but the ways in which they present their political party as an alternative or use appealing slogans like from the -- like "freedom" or "jobs," that mean a variety of things, but they have a lot of appeal, and what i see is a kind of a sophistication that's going on there, that i think is kind of dangerous, that they are not just using hate speech, not just using negative image, but trying to build up a much larger group of supporters using things that have much wider appeal. >> well, danielle, what about censorship, why not just shut them down? >> oh, what the first amendment

is like, the mountain that will not go away, you, i mean, i think there's a wisdom. once we censor ideas that it's hard to make a set of rules in which we are consistent in prince. s and ends up in the hands of judges to decide the issues. i think, certainly, bringing their subjective agenda to the table is trouping so perhaps, i think, i'm more first amendment oriented than admit, but what do they say betting on faith? bet on the first amendment because i think it leads us to better results. >> we've got to bear in mind that in 1933 in germany, there was a sort of free press. >> yeah. >> there was a sort of tolerance, even of extremist views, such as the nazis, and then we ended up with fascism in germany and world war ii and the

holocaust, so it's very tricky. i mean, we're placing our faith, as you said, in the first amendment, and maybe we're doing the right thing, but it is a question anyway. >> well -- >> go ahead. >> it's interesting you bring that up. >> yeah. >> when you think of germany, very literate society, about 4700 different newspapers in germany, that's more newspapers than england, france, and italy combined at that time, and only a small percentage of them, 60 of them were nazi newspapers. now, what -- so, there were a variety of opinions expressed from all political viewpoints. there were some that said you should shut down the nazi paper. they cracked down on them. the nazis said it's a violation of free speech, violating our rights, and there were some

liberal journalists, and of course once they come into power, and going the is very much aware of this particular program in response of the efforts by certain governments around the world to censor con tent online. there's a campaign to promote free and open internet so let's take a look at it. ♪ >> [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations]

>> i think google does that very well, very well, now, in a democratic society, who is left with determining the boundaries of free speech? >> you know, so there's excellent new piece in the new republic calling it the deleters, and he talks about who are in charge are intermediaries and chief safety officers who are making decisions, you know, the folks at youtube, which, of course, the scale is e enormous, 60 hours of video every minute is posted on yiewsh. so they have a big staff, but that's a lot of videos to go through, especially when there are complaints, and so who is in

charge of the most populated sites are the folks working there who make decisions to delete speech, keep it up, sponsor zones of counter speech. they are really in charge, so jeff rosen worries that if we move beyond the first amendment, those in charge, the deciders, or as he says, the deleters, changes the sort of atmosphere, and it's not really the government so much. i mean, the key powerful actors here are not necessarily governments, at least in the united states, but it's private actors and silicone valley. >> there could be boundaries for privacy, and in 1939, they collected data on every living person in germany, and they utilized the machine called the machine issue an anteseptet to

what we know of as the computer, but with that machine, they were able to track all of the data that they collected, enabled the nazis to separate the jews out of the rest of the german people, and today's technology allows much more extensive collection, sharing of private information, raising serious privacy concerns, individuals, organizations become more sophisticated with leveraging personal information that is shared online. the opportunities seem to be growing exponentially. now, is the american public giving too much trust in a particular individual or a cause when releasing perm -- personal information in this way,? do you think? >> i think we're definitely far too trusting, and we're also, i think, we have little control.

to the extent we have notice in choice, there's a meaningful chance that they don't collect my data is ill los ri. there's the private sector, other than a few sectors like banking and health, we have very few privacy protections, and i think to piggy back on what steve said astutely that what the nazi party did right in the message is tailor messages to have fun and appeal to people, and if you think about behavioral advertising, if insidious messages pair with the insights of advertising like knowing what you're interested online and on the web, we make effective pitches to people because we know what they search for, what they are interested in, and think about the power and control that if that is in the wrong set of actors, what

ensues. what google knows about me in the search is they make a powerful ad that makes me interested in whatever message that is. >> yeahings i mean, you raise a -- yeah, i mean, you raise a very good question because when i look at things, you know, i was shopping for, they show your history, and all of that, but the nazis understood that at the time because one of the areas they went to are, like, marketplaces and did a surveillance of public opinion gathering because this is where people talked, they could find out what the issues were that bothered people, and then they tailored propaganda to it, and even though it was crude by our standards today, they were looking at that that this is how you create images tailored to the audience you want to capture. >> as we move towards the conclusion of the talk here, i

want to ask you both to think about some of the large questions here. is it safe to say that a majority of us, bombarded by many computer messages every single day, yes, it is safe to say that, but what can we do as responsibly informed citizens to sift through all this information? how can we train ourselves to recognize and respond to bias messages and even worse to messages of outright hate, what does it require to be an engauged citizen in the world today? i'm really thinks initially of americans. >> i think being mindful we are being manipulated. we have biases that we were less careful when we're on automatic pilot k and a lesson i'm

thinking about what you are saying is right, that if we're mindful of our biases and mindful we're so persuaded by what comes first. in a search result, studies that appear prominently, we buy into it thinking it's true. maybe if we take a second saying, hold on, should we question that, that we're in a better position; right? that we are -- if the more would have a critical eye in what we see, i think, is a valuable lesson. >> do you feel that we as a people have the clout as well as the parks to take on all of these problems and confront it head on in >> i think we do. it requires time and patience, but i think it's important because i, even, you know, i think about myself, and i look at things on the interpret or i look at things on television,

and sometime it's the things finding most appealing, why do i find that appealing? how is that working to, you know, win me over? i think it's sometimes that's the more dangerous or insidious type of messages or propaganda when it's appealing to something you believe in, or you think you might or parts of it you might find appealing -- >> but how can we be mindful of the incredible, quiet, pervasive pleasure and pressures and influences that are all over, appearing to be no escape from these ideas, and they are on television. you hear and watch people talk about them all the time. it's in a respectable environment. it's the free press. what are the messages that are getting through?

we now got to a point where networks represent particular political points of view. fox remits a conservative point of view, msnbc a very liberal point of view. that was not the way it was. in other words, the power of technology, the quest for profit, is pushing us all in a certain direction, and i'm seeking, from both of you, help. >> i'm seeking you'll tell us because y'all had a right. how do we get back there? >> never go home again. >> man, okay. >> you can't go home again. >> you want to know from us, but i want to know from you. >> you can't go home again, no. >> it's a complicated question because i think more and more, you know, people, even on the internet, the greatest marketplace of ideas in the world, but often people seek out sites they like. they are not looking to get the

broadest view, but looking to find what they agree with, and i think that's the difficulty is that youhave to maybe encourage people to take a broader per speckive or take a broader view point. >> absolutely, absolutely. go back to the quote and thin about what it is he's saying that groups come together and they are closer when they are sharing the same political point of view, the same crodo, and as we said before, it leads to an extremist point of view. my own feelings here is that the holocaust remind us of a so-called bit of progress. the technological progress is not moral progress. the tech loming call stuff leads

us to the opposite direction. we live in a time, clearly, when humanity faces many questions. how will we build human solidarity when the power of the individual is so magnified by this new technology? how will we counter misinformation with proof? how can our common humanity overcome our differences, and who will assume responsibility for the future? regardless of the challenges of of a constantly changing world, this museum will continue to educate people about our most important message, the holocaust was preventable, and so if we commemorate 20 years, we must remind people that their actions are powerful, that what you do matters. let me now, at this point, thank our panelists. it was absolutely wonderful

today. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> and to thank all of you for coming, really appreciate that very much, and to point out there's a lot of other things going on in different parts of the museum so enjoy them all. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> so that wraps up today's events on the 20th commemoration of the opening of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum. if you missed today's events, they will be available shortly online at c-span.org. join us later for debate between candidates to represent south carolina's first district in the u.s. house. republican, mark sanford, up against democrat elizabeth bush, live 7 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. elsewhere in washington today, president obama spoke at the national academy of sciences. we covered that event, and we'll show it to you later in its entirety. right now, though, here's a look at some of his comments. >> the idea of the essence of america is the hunger to

innovate, the rest lestness, the next big thing, and although, much of the innovation is run by the free market, the intervening of the federal government could accelerate discovery in a way to continually push the nation forward. that's our inheritance, and now the task falls to us. we, too, face significant challenges. obviously, not at the magnitude president lincoln faced, but we have severe economic, security, and environmental challenges, and what we know from our past is the investments we make today are bound to pay off many times over in the years to come. we will continue to pursue advances in science and engineering and infrastructure and innovation, in education, in environmental protection, especially time based initiatives to minimize and

adapt to global threats like climate change. i'm confident we'll meet that task a because we've got you. brilliant and committed scientists to help us guide the way, and part of what's made the academy effective is that all the scientists selected to the elite ranks are volunteers, which is fortunate because we have no money anyway. [laughter] >> if you were trying to generate, as a government, and looking for ways to generate new revenue, silicon valley has the answers. if you're trying to explore and ignite better innovation within your companies, silicon valley has the answers, and then from an entrepreneurs' stand point, how is entrepreneurship in silicon valley thal other places because it is because it's based on failure, learning from one's experiences, but it's also recognizing that you can be part of the process of adopting other

people's ideas, or you may have the idea for the next big thing, but the bottom line is there's an authenticity to how things are in silicon valley that's accepted no matter who row are. >> what makes silicon valley tick tonight on "the communicators" tonight on eight on c-span2 #.

>> the house energy and comers subcommittee o oversight heard from families of improper use of hipa. this closure of health records, especially in cases of mental illness, has gained attention since the sandy hook elementary school shooting. they must be sensitive toll stigma surrounding mental illness. >> we are here for a hearing entitled does hepa help or hinder care in public's safety? as there is a classified briefing as well as votes this morning, we're going to opening statements in order to get to the. -- to get to the witness' testimony. hearing last month addressed issues after newtown tragedy and how it hindered the ability to care and treat for loved ones.

we'll hear from a number of government representatives, professionals, parents, experts, family mes. it's app important issue. i ask all members, the reason we are here is members of congress, themselves, are experts and knowledgeable on many of the issues, so we appreciate your attention to this. we are here to ask questions and learn the facts about hipa from those who are knowledge l of them, and we remind you we have to retain decorum in the committee room, disropes tans will not be tolerated, and those doing so will be discharged if needed. we ask members to stick closely. >> will the chairman yield briefly? >> yes, i yield briefly. >> we agreed to put opens statements in the record, and i think that's appropriate gym this classified briefing scheduled yesterday out of respect. we really wanted to hear from the witnesses.

i will say, mr. chairman, though, that this is really an important topic, the hipa issue, particularly, relating to gun violence, and so i will -- but it's also important if we're asked to get u.s -- the u.s. militarily or otherwise involved in syria in this classified breeching is with the secretary of state, so op behalf of everybody, i want to apologize to the witnesses, some of us may be coming in and out, but we will read the testimony and make sure we know what's going on so thank you very much. >> i appreciate that. i want to let members know i communicated with the majority leader eric cantor providing a special briefing for any members who remain in this committee. you are aware that the committee is holding invest good hearingsd when doing so, we have the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have objection to testifying underoath? >> [inaudible] >> thank you.

the chair advices you that under the rules of the house and committee, you're entitled to be advised by counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel in your testimony today? thank you. in this case, rise, raise your right hand to be sworn in. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> [inaudible] >> let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative, and you are under oath entitled to the penalties in the united states code, and you may now each give a five-minute opening statement, but i'll introduce the witnesses for the hearing. mr. rodriguez, director of the office of civil rights at the department of health and human services overseeing the administrative operations of the civil rights division. we have professor mark, joint appointment at louisville, school of law and medicine. he also holds a chair of law and medicine, founding director of the institute for bioethics,

health policy, and law at louisville school of medicine. gentlemen, you may begin. make sure the microphone is on and pulled close to your mouth, thank you. >> okay. may i begin? good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. it is an honor for me to be here today in my capacity as directer of the office of civil rights at the u.s. department of health and human services, and i thank you for calling a hearing on this very important topic. as hhs enforcement agency for civil rights and health privacy rights, ocr handles development in education for compliance of laws in those areas. our office plays an important role in ensuring individual sepsestive health information is private and secure, and that individuals are able to exercise important rights with with respo the health information. one of the underpinnings of hipa is on optimal health care depens

on parents that their trust and health information remains confidential. hipa ensures health information can flow from important and necessary purposes such as patient treatment, obtaining payment for health services, and protecting the country's public health and safety. i have often said that hipa is meant to be a vol of, not a block cartilage, and it's above all meant to maximize the welfare and interest of the patients. as such, alook forward to discussing the existing flexibilities. hipa recognizes the role that family members play in supporting patients with significant illness, both physical and mental. i have read the family testimonies that were placed in the record and are heart broken by them so therefore take seriously this committee's desire to get to the right answer on these issues. to directly address the concerns that underlie this hearing, i'll

discuss the path that hipa offers for providers to disclose information received during treatments to protect the health and safety of our patients. for example, hipa permits health information to be used or disclosed without an individual's authorization for health, treatment, and payment, and for the business operations of cover r covered p entities. hipa permits other uses and disclosures for certain public health activities, for law enforcement purposes, and to avert serious and imminent threats to health or safety. i'd like to talk about disclosures to family members and friends of patients. this is an important area. ordinarily, if a patient does not object to information being either shared in front of family members or friends or with family members or friends, hipa provides a clear avenue for disclosure in those cases. additionally, if a patient is

income pass at a timed, and when i say that, we mean for that word to be given the full ordinary meaning, health care's may still communicate with family and friends of the patients if the provider determines based on their profession judgment that doing so is in the best interest of the individual. in this is, i think, an important point to underscore. hipa's meant to revolve around the professional judgment of the provider as to what's in the best interest of the patient, not meant to suppress that judgment. for example, a nurse can discuss a patient's medical condition in prompt of the patient's sister who accompanies them to the appointment. in a patient is unconscious, the doctor, again, can make that judgment to share information with family members. similarly, professional codes, state laws, profession standards of care recognize a duty and authority to warn a situation where a patient may oppose a

danger to themselves or others or may have disclosed information indicating a threat by another to either themselves or a thinker person. in those cases, where there is a serious and imminent risk of harm or health or safety, there is exception of disclosure in those cases, and when i say "imminent risk to health or safety" it's not the scenario of an individual going out to commit a violent crime, but, in fact, covers a number of scenarios that a health care providers, particularly a mental health care provider may encounter. we take our obligations to educate providers 5e7 -- provides and patients on this, and it's the position we took the initiative in january after the tragic events in newtown to issue a letter to the nation's health care providers clarifying these important points. finally, i want to talk for just

a moment about the nature in which we utilize our enforcement authorities. we focus primarily on long standing broad based security threats. we have never taken enforcement action because a provider decided in the best interest of a patient to disclose information to a third party. thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, ranking member, thank you, members of the committee. >> thank you, mr. rodriguez. >> mr. chairman, -- >> pull the microphone close to you, if you would. >> [inaudible] >> still not on. is it on? pull it close. >> [inaudible] >> can you -- >> how about now? >> these are government mics, and in the government sequester, they are down 20%. >> as is my voice, i'm afraid. mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee, on faculty on the university of louisville, but testifies today in my individual capacity, and, again, i

apologize for my larn guy tis. it's seasonal, i'm afraid. in the testimony this morning, i make the following three points. first, the hipa privacy rules is essential to patient care and public health and safety. second, permit disclosure of health information for important public purposes, and, third, additional measures could affect the effectiveness of the rule. first, since the hippocratic oath, medical codes of ethics maintain the health information without assurances, patients are reluctant to divulge sensitive information about their physical, mental health, their behavior, and lifestyle that could be vital to the individual's treatment. ..

with substance abuse deterred from obtaining behavioral health care. confidentiality protections there for -- options therefore serve to advance both the patient and the public interest. although we were all deeply saddened by the recent horrific loss of life caused by some violent mentally unstable individuals, we should

appreciate the potential consequences if new excess of mental health reporting requirements were enacted. each year in the united states there are over 38,000 suicides, and over 700,000 emergency room visits caused by self-inflicted harms. any steps to lessen confidentiality protections mean that the unnecessary disclosure could lead vast numbers of individuals to forgo mental health treatment and potentially result in significantly more suicides, self-inflicted harm and untreated mental illness. second the privacy will specifically permits a covered entity to dispose ten types of health information of importance to the public and while the rule doesn't hinder public safety among these 12 categories or disclosures for public health

activities about victims of abuse, neglect or domestic violence for law enforcement and to avert a serious threat to health safety. the 12 public perceptions are permissive. the privacy rule does not require in disclosures. the disclosure obligations are rise from other sources such as state public health reporting walz. the effect of the exhibition is to permit otherwise required disclosures without violating the privacy rules. their income for the last ten years, inadequate health professional and patient outreach and education programs have led to a lack of understanding of the privacy rule by many affected individuals and covered entities. a common problem is that some uses and disclosures permitted by the privacy rule are not allowed by some entities perhaps out of ignorance or an over abundance of caution. the 2013 promulgation of the omnibus amendments to the

privacy rules make it an appropriate time for the hhs to start a new program of public and health care provider education and outreach. in conclusion, the privacy rule i believe is essential to individual health care and public health and safety. additional efforts to increase understanding of the privacy rule by the public and covered entities as well as revising some of the public purpose exceptions will enhance the effectiveness of the privacy rule. i thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. >> i think both the gentleman. let me ask some questions. i recognize there are five minutes to read during the march fifth forum that we have on the severe mental illness, my own father and son had a mental illness pointed to hipaa as an obstacle getting his on the help he needed. he explained one of his son's doctors judged him to be extremely high risk for suicide or other bad outcomes. more than once and it failed to share this information.

he tragically took his own life only months later while living with his parents and a was only after his death that they were able to obtain their son's medical records. is this an example where it worked as intended? >> no but if it were followed to the letter that would have permitted the disclosure. >> do you agree on that, too? is the license provider from revealing of information to the parents of the young adult living with their parents? yes or no? >> under some circumstances, it might. in most circumstances there would be paths for disclosure. >> does it allow them to provide receiving care through the health care plan at age 26 as envisioned by the affordable care act so if there is still dependents can you tell me where the cut off is?

>> the cutoff in terms of the patient's ordinary ability to project is the age of majority whenever it happens to be any particular state. >> so pennsylvania is age 14 could decide whether or not that information is to be disclosed and others it may be 18. >> i would assume it would 18. > are you familiar with the tend what that means >> i am aware of it, chairman, because i actually read the majority memorandum for this hearing. certainly going back to the discussion of serious and capacity i the discussion of serious imminent risks of harm, certainly situations where that condition either run burst the patient to be in a condition of incapacity or for the consequences of the condition are a serious risk of eminent

harm through health safety. it doesn't mean going out and committing a crime, it canmean a variety of different things that can be extremely harmful to that patient and then yes in those cases a patient could disclose without consent. >> would you agree? >> i agree. >> it sounds like from what i read in your testimony what you said here that we may find a lot of providers are misinterpreting were over interpreting all that prevent them from disclosing things to patient speed is that what you are suggesting is happening? >> chairman, we have observed in a variety of areas of enforcement that there is anxiety about the rules and all the wrong places. if you look at where we have taken the enforcement action, it's been focused on institutions that have had longstanding failures to protect the security of all of the patient information. hipaa was designed to respect the judgment to the patient's

best interest. i think that is unfortunately misunderstood and that is one of the reasons we put that clarification -- >> this gets to the matter why we are here today and we want to hear some testimony from some professionals, experts and some parents. >> with the provider decides not to show the minow, the information for those reasons? >> what if the patient doesn't sign the release? the patient themselves does not even recognize the of the problem and the parents even go to court to say we would like to have these records reviewed. i can't release these records of the judge says we can and asks the patient and the patient says know. and yet the condition may still exist if the patient is at risk for suicide would then? >> one thing to also keep in mind in answering this question is hipaa is the only relevant body of the wall so we are talking about professional

ethical standards with the american psychiatric association, the american psychological association, in post duties of confidentiality and expectations -- and create exceptions as we do, and in fact our rules are built around both of those ethical duties and state law such as for example that in the tariffs of the california board of regents case. clearly in the kind of scenarios where you describe where a provider is aware for example of the risk of suicide come a very situation, where we are talking about the serious risk of benet harm, it doesn't stand as a barrier even in the absence of a patient consent to disclosure. anybody that can help the patient is a critical element. to the person that can lessen or remove the threat to the patient putative that is the parent that is where the disclosure would go

it provides many important protections for people's medical privacy. and we have a history of bipartisan agreement that people need to be doubled to keep their sense of itself information private. and so, i think we would agree with our witnesses on the importance of hipaa but also we need to recognize and many of these shootings in a mental illness situation of someone is arrested themselves and to their families there are clearly some problems with all providers and institutions or interpreting. others would be up to the providers decision to advise the parent or other responsible debt. is that correct, mr. rodriguez? >> yes, i agree. >> i just want to say i'm not going to blindly defend but we should be careful when we

contemplate changes to that statute. how they can be barriers to treating not just the mentally but also the physically ill. i myself as a parent i have a diabetic child and even before she was 18-years-old, sometimes we had a hard time getting providers to give us information. that isn't because of hipaa giving it its because the writers misinterpreted hipaa so when we hear these tragic stories today and i'm hoping that i get back for that, i think we really need to take it seriously but we need to look at the ways to educate providers. in the aftermath of the murder of 32 people what virginia tech, we learned that the interpretations prevented mental health professionals from sharing information. misinterpretations of hipaa and others were also identified by the gao and by president obama's gun violence task force as an

obstacle to reporting individuals who should be barred from gun ownership to the next background check system and so. the interpretations of the other privacy rules have created obstacles. is that correct? and in fact you sent a letter out on january 15th to health providers around the country. trying to delineate exactly what hipaa says, correct? now tell us why you sent this letter. >> because of the concerns of interaction between situations where a provider is aware of information indicating danger through the pension or others and some of the events we've been hearing about in recent

years to also to allow them to consult with their ethical standards and applicable state laws that clearly to give them a pathway to report on these kind of situations they issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public comment on hipaa and its barriers to the reporting and individuals deutsch to mental health concerns; is that correct? >> that is correct. >> can you explain why this advanced notice of rule making is necessary and what information you are trying to collect? >> sure. in most states the reporting is to disqualifying information actually comes from the judicial system, which isn't covered under hipaa. we are aware -- at least generically about some examples. new york until recently was one very clear example of states where the reporting occurred from the entities that are in

fact covered by hipaa and were reporting would ordinarily have been prohibited by hipaa. we want to understand where and to what extent hipaa is a barrier in those cases and take any appropriate steps to move those barriers. it doesn't say the individual to the age of 20, that is a good question for you, it doesn't say individuals of to the age of 26 was still considered a legal the dependent on their parents. is that correct? >> in fact the affordable care at the didn't talk about hipaa, did it? i would ask unanimous consent to put the january 15th 2013 letter

to the providers into the record >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize dr. pingree for five minutes. >> thank you very much for calling this very & hearing. i'm sitting here thinking as a physician and member of the subcommittee that it's kind of ironic, isn't it, that this law passed in 1996, hipaa, is almost like it sounds like the had the craddock oath. it has nothing to do with it other credit growth which is hundreds of of thousands of-years-old in the first place do no harm and with regard to how you treat a patient.

if it isn't done correctly, great harm, there is a potential for great harm not only to the patient, but to the general public. so, i just think that -- i find that sort of ironic. mr. rodriguez, when was the last time that the office of civil rights under the hhs updated the health care providers guide to the hipaa privacy rules posted to the ocr web site and how about the patient died, same thing. >> congressman, we are updating on a routine basis as different issues come up. as you know we issued a major rule that affects both consumers and providers in january of this year and so we have been busy posting updates relevant to that rule.

the gun violence after new town we took steps to put up this reminder about the manner in which hipaa internet with the duties. we are updating the information. >> these guides answer the common questions about hipaa, correct? do you ever receive input from the general public or the health care providers about the effectiveness of these updates? >> we do. we speak routinely to the groups and provider groups. my door is always open. in fact i took the initiative this morning to connect with several of the family members today because i want to hear from them. i want to make sure that we are getting -- >> i'm going to come right back to you. but are you familiar with these guys? do you have any sense of how effective they are? >> i'm not sure how effective they are but i can, and generally about the outreach and education programming with all

due respect to ocr and hhs we have a major problem in this area. if you read the regulations there are ample places where these kind of issues, the problem of notifying parents and with notifying individuals who are at risk is spelled out, but hipaa is a very misunderstood regulation. it was understood by the public. it's misunderstood by health care providers and. as a practicing position for a long time, for ten years ago i knew that. and i think -- in fact i wonder if some physicians don't have to be to hide behind hipaa to move on to the next patient in regard

to questions that their loved ones who that doesn't exist too much but it's something we need to think about putative let me go back to the director of the office of civil rights mr. rodriguez. how does ocr measure? i think when i was talking to you just a second ago it sounded like it was more anecdotal from your perspective. but how does ocr measure with the clarification stood that you referenced on january 25th of this year how do you measure how they are working? for example, have the number of privacy rules complaints filed under the various complete categories been trending down words with every further clarification, hopefully this most recent one from ocr, does ocr keep track of this? do you think this would be a helpful metric to attract in judging the performance, your performance of your outreach and

education and ethics concerning the privacy rule? >> in answering the first part of the question, congressman, the truth is our caseload has remained steady and in fact has grown slightly over the years since we give commenced enforcement. we have received something on the order of i think approximately 80,000 complaints since we first began receiving it. the amount is fairly steady. part of what is going on right now is the referenced 1996 but the rules are to become final in 2003 and in 2005. and so there has been a learning curve over the years both for consumers and providers to understand what hipaa requires and we often emphasize the or scalable meaning that it is meant to be designed for a very wide variety of health care scenarios. i agreed generally that our caseload is certainly indicator.

it's not the only indicator of how well folk sar understanding the requirements. i certainly agree with that proposition. terrapin surveys i'm not able to speak to them in specifics right now in terms of where a patient concerns are, where provider concerns are and we certainly do hear a lot of anecdotal information as you've described. >> thank you for allowing the witness to answer. all i yield back. stat we now recognize the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing, which deals with the ongoing struggle between patient privacy and protecting the public safety. these are not easy issues to deal with. but i think a part of the challenge we faced and part of the concerns of the family members who have been dramatically impacted by a hour inability to solve this problem is that these particular provisions you have been talking about, mr. rodriguez, are commonly known as the duty provisions come and get to most

of us who understand, the duty to warn, it is a mandatory obligation, not a permissive requirement. and even though i a understand completely your explanation of how this permissive disclosure is then subject to the state law dealing with mandatory disclosure i think many health care professionals, particularly mental health care professionals look at the hipaa language, see that it's permissive, and that's the end of the story for them. and i would like to hear from both of you how are we educating the public, and more specifically mental health care providers about this bridge between supposedly mandatory duty to warn the provisions but actually permissive and state law requirements that might be. >> it's one of the issues that i think the drafters of our rule in this area are attempting to

tackle because i think you're correct we are talking about the duty and the authority. and other words when we are talking about the exame, there we are talking about an actual duty to protect. >> but based on the state law and not on the language of hipaa to this gimmick is meant to get out of the way of those duties and authorities and declare for those duties and authorities to be utilized and implemented by providers and professional judgment to be the hallmark of win disclosure occurs. >> peter wrote this book about his son's journey through the mental health system and criminal-justice system and he noted appropriately president kennedy signed a mental health law that authorized congress to spend up to $3 billion in the coming decades to construct a national network of community health, mental health centers

and notes on the next page the congress never got around to funding or financing the community mental health centers. so the process of the institutional position moving from state mental health institutions to community-based mental health care that was supposed to happen instead became a process where more and more people wound up in the criminal justice system, and we now have law enforcement officers providing frontline mental health care. and i think for the families of some of the victims that have experienced firsthand the loss of a loved one because of our inability to bridge this gap, especially when a patient is accompanied to the treatment facility by law enforcement officials who have the duty to protect the public safety and they are not provided information about the release of that patient even though they are a prior history, how we get to the point that we are protecting the patient's privacy come and at the same time, making sure that we aren't blocking the disclosure of

information that can protect the public? >> i certainly think we need to continue our educational efforts and that is wide initiative the was widely covered in the professional media come as a reminder that we sent in january was something that was really embraced by mental health profession a. where the danger is posed it doesn't stand as an obstacle to the providers acting in the interest of the patient and of public safety. i think it is also worth noting that there is a countervailing concern that patience who fear that their information will not be confidential won't get treated and that is equally why congress when you talked about the difficult balance that is the balance that both our

regulations and health care providers i believe are trying to strike. >> one of the other concerns that is raised if we have a child in a divorce proceeding or custody proceeding, the number one role of the court system is to decide what is in the best interest of the child. that is their principal focus and yet when we have adult patients getting mental health treatment who may or may not be given to decisions about their own treatment needs often times the legal criteria are not what is in the best instance of the patient but protecting the patient wishes from the legal standpoint and that often the at tickets focus on that rather than getting the best treatment that would benefit them in the society. what are the obstacles we need to face to deal with that problem? >> it's a very difficult question. the immediate test would be whether the individual was competent. and if the individual was

competent, health care providers tend to overlook all the other tests. if the individual was competent and a threat to herself or others, then that overrules the competency issue. if the and fitch was incompetent, not able to make reasonable decisions about his or her mental health, then the confidentiality protections would not apply. >> thank you. >> we now recognize the jim bunning from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and for again holding this very important mental health hearing especially in lieu of the forum that we had a couple of weeks ago with the family members and, you know, there was a very, very important and emotional and revealing discussion that we had, which brings me to some of the questions that i have because i have practiced in health care. i am a nurse, my husband is a

general surgeon and, you know, hipaa can sometimes get in the way. and as health care professionals, i would say that you would typically air on the side of, you know, protecting the patient's confidentiality and yourself as a health care professional. mr. rodriquez, i would like to ask you since the implementation of 2003, according to my information, the hhs has received over 79,120 hipaa complains. what is the procedure when the complaint comes down? >> the first thing we do is assess whether or not it is a complete at all. or whether the complaint is about some other issue outside of our jurisdiction. if we determine that we do have jurisdiction, we then conduct an inquiry and an investigation into the obligations.

if we determined there were violations we work with the entity ordinarily and i'm going to talk about the exceptions of our monitoring and for that program. in the practice going forward to be compliant in those areas. through high-tech we received enhanced monetary authorities particularly would direct that concerns about the security of electronic health information. the inference that specifically focused on using disclosure issues we've been talking about here has in fact grown and it's been a priority of mine. on the maintained information. >> very important. >> can you tell me, there again, since the implementation of

hipaa, it brings me to the next question of have there been significant lawsuits filed is their something you have information about come and when i say lawsuits i mean against health care professionals. >> hipaa doesn't provide for a private cause of action so there have been a few lawsuits alleging privacy or some other. >> they refer to the violations but they do not provide them. islamic i get back to the issue of health care providers who would air on the side of, you know, less information is probably better. always looking out for the patient and unfortunately always having to cover your own self. that is one of my areas of concern to because i believe it

is kind of a gray area and it is left up to too much interpretation. so, mr. rodriguez my final comment, do you have a sense of how often hospitals and staff actually go over the regulations and make sure they are up-to-date? >> it is. we did an audit program that was another requiring and we found a wide range of those that take them seriously and show the new employees are trained but there are so many providers that is in the case. >> the compliance at the board. it's been a gas unfortunately so many things fall on this information i think this is definitely one of those areas.

thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> we recognize mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> of me begin by thanking you for your testimony today. it's obviously that you are both well prepared. i will address this question to mr. rodriguez. following the tragedy, president obama ticker prieta action bigler fighting to health care providers in writing, the duty to warn law enforcement authorities of the threats of violence. first of all is that true? >> that is true. was that the president's direction. >> it was going to leave me to the next question is executive order or what was it? it was a letter from your office. spinnaker was a reminder of existing duties under law and also of the administration's emphasis the authority to warn

should be fully exercised to protect public safety to this gimmick has that had any impact as far as you can determine? >> it's had an impact in the sense that there has been renewed discussion about this issue, there was extensive industry media coverage in the letter and so therefore we believe based on that the reminder reached the folks that needed to reach. >> how many letters actually went out from your office? >> they were posted on the web site and then disseminated by gove press release and list serves that hhs has. >> can you describe additional ways health information technology for economic and clinical health act which we passed in the recovery act? how it has improved security requirements for patient records? >> i appreciate that question. first of all it has done so by

bringing together business associates within the ambit of the privacy and security rules. those are the contractors that serve a health care providers and in fact often come into possession of large quantities of protected all the information. we now directly regulate them as we directed health care providers before that. it increases the penalties for the violation which we've used extensively for security violations. and also was a devilish as requirements that breached the health information need to be reported to our office to the effect of patience. they would be seen by the infected patients. can you describe the end here to hipaa? >> sure. to my knowledge there are many

professional conferences in fact we actually have prepared a series of videos that have been posted and several more that will be posted on netscape including some that are relevant to the topic we are discussing here discussed the aspects of the privacy and security roles that were particularly concerned about smaller providers who don't necessarily have the resources of larger institutions pity and so we are looking for opportunities to reach them. >> i also understand there are medical school curriculum to touch on these issues as well. >> it is my understanding that health care providers covered by hipaa must notify patients of the privacy of their health information is reached. what methods are notified for those individuals? they should ordinarily be notified in writing. again in certain cases we provide for modification through the media.

>> finally come even with the hipaa projections we have heard privacy concerns can cause individuals directly avoid treatment. i'm not sure that i knew that. could increasing information sharing cause fewer individuals to seek treatment? >> that certainly is a concern especially individuals that have since said the information where it will be disclosed to the investigation committee has asked an opportunity to join and without objection we will allow him five minutes to ask questions. >> thank you, chairman murphy. gentlemen, i'm a practicing physician and i will see a patient this tuesday morning. i have a sense that you are incredibly bright and well versed in the law. i will just tell you the

physicians fear the federal government. they understand if the federal government comes after them and grabs them in their long legal arm of the physician they ultimately wind is destroyed in the process. now, i listened to what you said on how this would be to allow certain forms of communication. but i would also say that when i read the maximum penalty is 1.5 million, when the physician as having their in service on hipaa, that is what they remember. and when they understand that it is permissible not to give information, but he may get in trouble if you do, i can tell you that dhaka and that gal seeing 20 patient does not have your expertise. but what they do have are examples of the physicians that have been grabbed by the law and not what those until every one of their personal resources have been exhausted. that is just a comment barnett of incredible frustration with this sense the federal devotee

of sdi and the entity that the american people have no fear and int a greare fear some people act cautiously. that said after my rant i apologize. let me ask a couple things. we say that the dhaka may communicate with the family if there is imminent danger. can the family say to the mother to the adult child that lives with her son isn't taking his medicines and therefore we need to do something about that. kim the physician do that? >> again we go back to the idea of the serious risk to health or safety so we are not talking about imminent danger. certainly includes that scenario but it's much broader than that. if the patient help would be seriously adversely affected, and the providers communication of that information to the

parent would provide a way of eliminating or at least reducing the threat, then hipaa provides clearer authority. >> the patient is bipolar and my little rusty on my site so this may no longer be used but assume they are on lithium and the level shows it is low and the patient isn't taking the drug with a documented fact, can they say to the mother your son isn't taking his lithium. >> you might have heard the beginning of my testimony before also talking in cases of an capacity. >> i'm sorry, of what? i'm not saying they are incapacitated because when the level falls they don't become incapacitated could get the largest on the potential the verge of being but they still seem sane. >> then i think that the pathway is -- if the result would be a serious consequence for the individual's health and provides a path for those communications.

>> there seems to be a bit of wiggle room. i'm not sure the physician would find a safe car were in that kind of answer. >> the safe harbor would be this week it received 80,000 cases since we began enforcing 12 of them have resulted in monetary penalties to this because i accept that but what you are talking about is it a losing patience and three in the morning who doesn't have your expertise to create that is the reality. and i can tell you that what you hear in that in service is that if you violate hipaa they are going to turn you every which way but loose. i've been there. >> i would love to see those. >> what it says here that the patient health care provider isn't permitted to share personal the information with the family or friends of an adult that tells a provider not to do so? what if that patient is

incompetent? what if they actually at this point in time are not listed? a think there are black helicopters circulating and their mother is the pilot of one of them. >> that's why i mentioned -- that is certainly in cases of incapacity and certainly in capacity can include a situation where a patient is far from lucid than in those cases there's also a basis. >> sometimes it is in the eye of the beholder. i will tell you there is a wall street journal article about william brice or bruce, i can't remember which, he was released and killed his mother with a catch it so clearly he was considered a loose enough to be released. i'm sorry i'm out of time. i apologize i have to forgo. >> it's been to be one minute of additional questions and then on to the next panel.

we will do one minute. the confusion has prohibited them from sharing 1.5 million records with the national instant background check system of persons who have been involuntarily committed to mental health treatment or deemed mentally incompetent by the court of law. therefore they are prohibited from owning a firearm. our committee sent a letter to the hhs on february 13th asking about interfering in this next list. i note that the hhs has announced it would be soliciting feedback on the reform. why do you believe the states are not applauding those records? >> i certainly have heard of one of several different reasons. i do not understand it to be the only reason. i know certainly in the case of new york state the reporting was coming out or would have had to have come out of what was a

covered entity and therefore what would have been prohibited. we are looking to eliminate that kind of very year. >> can you get a written response to the committee on this issue clarifying that? mr. braley for one minute. >> we were talking earlier about some of the challenges faced with the incredible burdens placed on law enforcement officials, the systems to provide front line mental health care this has been a dramatic shift at what has happened since congress passed legislation trying to prod community-based mental health. we now have a long learning experience and people that care about the rights of the mentally ill like i do, people that care about protecting public safety like i do want to know what we've learned from these experiences as we move forward and try to create a balanced

system that is protecting the public and the rights of patients to get the best possible treatment when obviously we have been failing at that. what can we do? >> well, that is a difficult question. on the one hand, we need to increase the funding and the wherewithal of community mental health service. that's for sure. what we can address at this hearing today is the importance of getting out the message of what it does and does not require. one of the problems over all this that hipaa was intended to the floor above which medical ethics and state law would take place. but in many areas including mental health area as it is the floor and there is nothing else about it. >> you can offer a written response because we are recognizing. you are recognized for one minute. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i don't know if i can do this that quickly that mr. rodriguez,

jim replete, the hhs publish a final rule that makes, quote, significant modifications to marketing by third parties to the patient for purposes of identifying potential beneficial to all the opportunities for patients. for instance, many drug companies use third parties to help identify patient san need of care for purposes of inclusion in clinical trials. some of these patients, including those from my own district have chronic illnesses for which the treatment exists. with the service still be allowed if such a company come third-party company did not first get the patient consent? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i yield back. >> i am a little concerned. you mentioned this 26% of the people that have a diagnosed

mental order, disorder in one year. but if you talk of serious mental illness is a smaller percentage. >> those are the folks that are incompetent. believe me i speak from qassam experience of family members and friends that have been in the situation. don't you think it is a little disingenuous to say here's a group that truly are out of that as opposed to the 26% at the situation will depression and such like this. wouldn't it be honest to focus upon that group for their sake, the family's sake? >> absolutely. but the point i was trying to make was if legislation were enacted that made all mental health records more disposable to this bendixen you would accept this under very guarded circumstances? >> of course. spec as opposed to the broad public? >> but i'm worried about the

eskridge end of the 26%. >> someone that has bipolar circuits affected oftentimes does not have that in sight. and i think we have to be kind of honest about that. they have a break and no insight whatsoever. as a guy that has worked with such patient and has close people seceded. i yield back. >> thank you so much for being with us today. we appreciate your availability to respond to questions. as they are stepping up and we asked folks to get ready for the second panel a desk as we continue on with our previous hearing after a new town and also this one on hipaa, this committee is exploring the issues with a wide range that deal with mental illness and proper treatment etc. because of the concerns. i want to make it very clear all members aware of an audience and maybe also pitted as the kennedy

communicate thosth illness are responsible for violations we recognize that the victim's there are 11 times more likely to be victims of violent crime and not mentally ill and the vast majority of mental illness are not violent. it's important the a understand that. can the panel take their seats and move forward? i will be introducing you. he's a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry the university of utah school of medicine and the chair of the department of psychiatry behavioral at utah perform disclosure led to say when i was on the staff of the children's hospital in pittsburgh he was one of my students how time flies. we also have carroll who directs the hospital fund project that focuses on developing partnerships and health care professionals and family caregivers especially during a transition health care settings. next week of mr. red wolf, the

father of a sum that suffered from mental illness and substance addiction, then edward kelley. he is also of a son with mental illness. would you like to also recognize your guest? >> thank you mr. chairman. i am thrilled to have one of my constituents testify today from parkersburg of iowa. she has a story to tell about this gentleman of was featured in sports illustrated after he was gunned down by a former student. he was the nfl national high school coach of the year with four of his former players playing in the national football league, and she has an important story to share with us about these issues. >> finally we have ms. mcgraw, the director of the health privacy project at the center for democracy and technology. as you are all aware the committees of investigative hearings and when doing so has a proximate both. do you have any objective to testify under oath? beatifies under the house and rules of the committee were

advised by counsel do you desire to be advised during the testimony today? all answered negatively. would you all please rise and raise your right hand and i will swear you in. >> to use where the testimony were about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> the chair recognizes all of the participants and asks all of the participants to answer in the affirmative. you're under oath in title xviii section 101 of the united states code and we now get a five minute summary of your written testimony we recognize dr. martini for five minutes. >> good morning, chairman murphy and members of the subcommittee. i want to say i'm an immediate past board member of the american academy of psychiatry who paid for my trouble here today. thank you for inviting me to come and speak with you about hipaa as implications of clinical practice and print is made in this discussion.

my testimony will be reviewing this summary is based upon my clinical experience that do not include easily identifiable information. decisions about the release of the information are straightforward when the patient is a minor and lot emancipated. parents and primary care givers are involved in the process and a feeble not under the participants but also to guide them into psychiatric care. they are not believe recognize the nature or extent of the behavioral problems and this is one reason by psychiatrists as well as other pediatric mental health professionals trained to involve families and diagnosis and treatment. they also notice improves outcome. all pediatrics specialities struggle with transition from adolescence into young adulthood from the period of dependence to almost complete autonomy many are not prepared for the response of the particularly the patient is that experience mental illness and psychiatric disorders. families have provided a framework for their care and many aspects of their life.

one of my patience with a mild form of what is some developmental delayn the anxiety disorder was determined to move out of the home once he was employed. the parents knew however they couldn't manage his money, that he was emotionally reactive when faced with experience and couldn't track his meditations. nevertheless he didn't want his parents involved in routine care. it forced the parents to go to court and state that their son was not able to care for himself and he must be dependent. unfortunately the subsequent ruling in their favor was counter to the goals of psychiatric treatment and it derailed his progress of their people. psychiatrists spend time negotiating between parents and children. they don't want to discourage anyone from accessing the care specifically those who will not seek treatment if they believe someone will contact or involve their parents. however, the application of the bigot nation should be a negotiation with several options available, but the clinician and the patient to the division of -

20 suffered from a long history of kidney disease. he was in and out of the hospital in the company of his mother. he came into treatment because ances of the disease and the subsequent organ transplantation. i wanted to involve the mother and feared he but he refused because he was concerned about how was appointed she would be given everything they have gone through together. he was in treatment for about a year and was on antidepressant medication but dropped out of the treatment because of was too difficult. two years later, i ran into his physician. he told me he discontinued his medication and went into renal failure and died. psychiatrists should be able to respect the individual the of the have listened with a young adults under the legal protection. and use the strength of the family when necessary to support treatment. i recognize allowing the connection and less privacy for the patient at risk for serious mental illness is a significant change in the intent of the law but must we wait for a patient to be considered at risk for the

harm to himself or others before seeking help from parents or family? rose about confidentiality certainly affect situations that are more common among adolescents and young adults like going to college. parents are told even though they are going to be paying the bill, they will not have access to any medical or psychiatric information without the student's permission to meet one such patient with a history of congenital heart disease and depression wanted to go to college and her parents wanted her to stay close to home. she prevailed in three months going to school to begin to deteriorate medically and psychiatrically. the health center knew she was ill but without permission couldn't contact the parents. if the patient had a serious disorder with immediate consequences, the family may not find out about it until it received a bill some 50 days after today if there is a bias in the situation should be towards parental involvement and moved away from it? mental health professionals strive to do what is in the best interest of the patient while prefer to leave to preserving the right to protection under the law. the basis for the commitment and

connection regardless of the patient wishes has been harm to themselves or others. i suggest the standard would be examined with the goal of involving families whenever possible. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you dirty much. chairman murphy, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today. i am at the other end of the age spectrum. i work with family caregivers and older adults who are with multiple chronic illnesses, and i think the importance for my experience for your deliberation is that the misinterpretations, which we heard about from mr. rodriguez are far more pervasive than the specific questions of mental illness.

there are about 42 million americans who are taking care of their chronically ill older parents or other relatives, and i can't tell you how many times i hear from family caregivers who have a parent in the hospital, and the family members are expected to do well and care, monitor machines and all sorts of -- meek the care coordination in the community coming and when you ask about what do i need to know to do this, they said well, i can't tell you because of hipaa. it's simply wrong. why does it have been? because the features that have already been mentioned. there is this training that emphasizes the scary aspect. it's often done in a way that says if you say anything, you

are going to be in big trouble. and if the training doesn't say that, then the informal communication among health care providers for the middle level stuff isn't necessarily physicians but others were terrified that they are going to get through we are going to lose their job. meanwhile they lie all over the place. they are not paying attention to the actual security of this information. the second reason, and i think this is very pervasive, hipaa has become a very convenient excuse to avoid difficult conversations with families. it takes time to read it sometimes uncomfortable. it has nothing to do with the privacy of the patient information. it has to do with why do i have to talk to this bader? why can't i just tell the patient? find come if the patient is totally able to understand, but an 85-year-old woman with

congestive heart failure, moderate dementia, 55 of the medications and so forth just cannot of sort of that information. so i think that what we really need is far more education on a balanced level. i think it is instructive that our next united hospital fund stepping care web site guides for family care as the most downloaded guide is the one to hipaa. so, people are confused and looking for information. i think that hospitals, the covered entities wherever they are need to be encouraged to provide understandable information to their patients come to the families come to everyone the deal with. you go into the hospital now and get a piece of paper to sign or several pieces of paper, you can barely understand. i think mr. rodriguez and several members of the committee here would actually be able to

understand it, and mostly it is about what we can do with your information. it's not about protecting the patient interest at all. i think my ultimate question is whose interests are being protected? is a patient interest? is it the staff members interest not getting into trouble? i appreciate that. or is it the institution's interest not being in trouble, and those are valid. but they should never override the good clinical care and the importance of the communication that older people come in under people, everyone. so it is a very pervasive problem and it goes beyond what you are specifically asking about pivoted but i think it all -- it is a kind of a waterfall. once it starts it keeps going. and we continue to hold for more

clarification. >> thank you. >> good morning, chairman murphy and members of the oversight committee. my name is craig wolf, ceo of the litigation support and federal. i'm very thankful for the invitation extended to me so that i testify and address the needs to change law regarding miners and legally emancipated devils that either have a mental disorder, disability or drug and or alcohol addiction. i will sit for the reasoning for the wall that will have a positive impact on the society. my son justin was a gregarious compassionate intelligent young man whose life came to an end on december 19th, 2012 from a heroin overdose at the age of 21. he had attended his freshman and sophomore year and carried a 3.2 gpa but it ended deutsch poor behavior. he's been seeing a therapist since he was 15 deutsch anxiety

and a ph.d. to be he was placed on adderall and he was 17 on light physical illness, it has a much longer maturation duration until one discovers the effect and the result of which the tree that can possibly cure. in 2012, justin told his mother that he was taking her cassette and oxycontin. she'd come to a primary-care physician without my knowledge per his request. at bat time the prize to the doctor of his addiction and when his mother wasn't present in the room he stated he had been using heroin for a few months prior to that date. justin asked why not be apprised of the substances and didn't want his mother informed that his heroin usage. without disclosure the heroin usage and the doctor expressed by your concern to justin's mother and told her to taken immediately to a recommended crisis center for treatment. ..